3 ms·
With a GUI. I think it could also be less error prone if the user interface guides through the configuration.
by kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
With a GUI. I think it could also be less error prone if the user interface guides through the configuration.
- ccakes 5y agoThen it’s less scriptable. Many of us would prefer a CLI-based solution for that reason
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- xook 5y agoIt doesn't have to be one or the other. The GUI would be for one-off or intermittent usage, and the CLI program would still come in as the primary tool for scripting or recurring use.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- gnubison 5y agoWould it really be simpler to have 100 lines of GUI setup and tear down, obscuring the most important part (the commands being run)?
- kkjjkgjjgg 5y agoDepending on the GUI, it seems possible. You can also verify input in a GUI
- Dudeman112 5y agoBoth sounds good as opposed to instead. GUIs for simple stuff and 99% of the population, CLIs for hackermans who need the advanced stuff.
- nsv 5y agoYou won't find much support for an opinion like that on a site named "hacker" news, haha. A lot of backup services (tarsnap comes to mind) prioritize scriptability, as I imagine many people run backups from cron or a systemd timer.