command line vs gui
in [General Linux]
|
Prev: micro solution backpack cd-writer hell
Next: "...error while loading shared libraries: libg2c.so.0"
From: blmblm@myrealbox.com on 23 Nov 2005 04:39 In article <4383a29a$1$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice(a)news.patriot.net>, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spamtrap(a)library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote: >In <3u6eglFvkoi2U1(a)individual.net>, on 11/18/2005 > at 04:40 PM, blmblm(a)myrealbox.com (blmblm(a)myrealbox.com) said: > >>Maybe I lack experience with really well-written GUIs -- very >>possible since I'm a little fanatical about doing most things from a >>command line. I did say that GUIs are good for some purposes. Can >>you give an example of a GUI you think is "state of the art" >>(whatever that means)? > >WPS in OS/2, although it could be improved. Possibly OpenDoc, had it >not been stillborn. Trying a Google search .... Is this the "Work Place Shell" described here http://home.hiwaay.net/~jeffj1/computers/os2/WPS/ It does sound interesting .... [ snip ] >>If you're making a point about poorly worded questions ("do you want >>A or B?"), consider it made, and maybe you'd care to say *which* >>of the two options you prefer. > >Both. Might I respectfully suggest that you're being a little too aggressive in snipping quoted material .... I had to go back to my saved copy of the earlier posts to remember what the two options were. (I guess this means that my preferred newsreader -- trn -- doesn't have the best imaginable UI, since it doesn't make it particularly easy to access posts I've already marked "read".) > >>Or maybe your point was that it's a false dichotomy? > >Exactly. Part of good interface design is to make simple things easy >without adding to the difficulty of more complicated things. That >applies as much to a GUI as to anything else. Well said. -- | B. L. Massingill | ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.
From: Alan Connor on 23 Nov 2005 05:44 On comp.os.linux.misc, in <3uirn1F11j50mU1(a)individual.net>, "blmblm(a)myrealbox.com" wrote: <body not downloaded> Funny thread. Almost none of the posters here could run Linux from the commandline if their life depended on it. Therefore, they aren't qualified to comment on the subject. You can't intelligently compare two things unless you know both of them well. I'll bet that they haven't even noticed the fact that they aren't discussing GUI vs. CLI, but rather, GIDE (Graphical Integrated Desktop Environment) vs. CLI. The GUI is far more basic than the GIDE, and the x-terminal-emulator is a critical part of it. To run Linux from a pure GUI (window manager and x-terminal-emulator and pointer) you have to have fairly well developed CLI skills. I don't think that any of these folks, other than the tiny minority that knows the CLI, could even run Linux from a GUI. They need a GIDE like Gnome or KDE. The CLI is a complete user interface, but isn't anywhere near as simple as those who don't know it believe it is. There is much more to it than just typing commands in at the prompt. You create your own TIDE (Textmode Integrated Desktop Environment) using the bash (etc.) shell (command interpreter). For instance, a key part of my user interface is a large menu that pops up when I hit "m". It's a simple script using bash's 'case' command that you _could_ enter at the prompt, although it makes much more sense to put it in a file and have bash run it via the alias "m". On this menu (which has many submenus) are all of the commands that I run often, but not often enough to merit aliasing them with a short string like "p" for "connect to the Internet" (, which is actually /usr/bin/pon, written by John Hasler, who has posted on this very thread). But _I_ wrote this menu. It contains the commands and options and arguments that _I_ want to have available, not some geek at KDE dot org. And I can change it in a blink, profoundly. I don't have to wait for those geeks to decide to add a feature I want, which they may never do. I am not going to respond to replies here from anyone that has not demonstrated on these groups that they can run Linux from the commandline. Alan -- URLs of possible interest in my headers. ~ ~
From: blmblm@myrealbox.com on 23 Nov 2005 07:18 In article <slrndo8fjr.24b.i3x9mdw(a)b29x3m.invalid>, Alan Connor <i3x9mdw(a)j9n35c.invalid> wrote: >On comp.os.linux.misc, in <3uirn1F11j50mU1(a)individual.net>, >"blmblm(a)myrealbox.com" wrote: ><body not downloaded> Would you mind clarifying, please (or perhaps someone else can, since it's not clear to me that you're reading my posts): Does <body not downloaded> mean that you did not download, and therefore did not read, the body of the post to which you're replying? Just curious. (If so, it would be interesting to know on what basis you chose my post as the one you would reply to with this, um, interesting mix of hostility and CLI advocacy. I suppose having said that I shouldn't snip the rest of the message .... ) >Funny thread. Almost none of the posters here could run Linux >from the commandline if their life depended on it. > >Therefore, they aren't qualified to comment on the subject. > >You can't intelligently compare two things unless you know both >of them well. > >I'll bet that they haven't even noticed the fact that they aren't >discussing GUI vs. CLI, but rather, GIDE (Graphical Integrated >Desktop Environment) vs. CLI. > >The GUI is far more basic than the GIDE, and the >x-terminal-emulator is a critical part of it. To run Linux from a >pure GUI (window manager and x-terminal-emulator and pointer) you >have to have fairly well developed CLI skills. > >I don't think that any of these folks, other than the tiny >minority that knows the CLI, could even run Linux from a GUI. Observe that the discussion is cross-posted to comp.human-factors, and some subthreads have discussed GUIs in the context of application programs (such as ones to generate/write HTML) as well as in the context of shells. What does the ability to run Linux from the command line have to do with this subthread? And what an interesting definition of "pure GUI". How does this relate to the definitions of "Graphical User Interface" one finds elsewhere, at least some of which say that the critical components include menus and icons as well as windows and a pointing device? > >They need a GIDE like Gnome or KDE. > >The CLI is a complete user interface, but isn't anywhere near as >simple as those who don't know it believe it is. > >There is much more to it than just typing commands in at the >prompt. > >You create your own TIDE (Textmode Integrated Desktop >Environment) using the bash (etc.) shell (command interpreter). > >For instance, a key part of my user interface is a large menu >that pops up when I hit "m". It's a simple script using bash's >'case' command that you _could_ enter at the prompt, although it >makes much more sense to put it in a file and have bash run it >via the alias "m". > >On this menu (which has many submenus) are all of the commands >that I run often, but not often enough to merit aliasing them >with a short string like "p" for "connect to the Internet" (, >which is actually /usr/bin/pon, written by John Hasler, who has >posted on this very thread). > >But _I_ wrote this menu. It contains the commands and options and >arguments that _I_ want to have available, not some geek at KDE >dot org. And I can change it in a blink, profoundly. I don't >have to wait for those geeks to decide to add a feature I want, >which they may never do. > >I am not going to respond to replies here from anyone that has >not demonstrated on these groups that they can run Linux from >the commandline. > >Alan > >-- >URLs of possible interest in my headers. >~ >~ -- | B. L. Massingill | ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.
From: Alan Connor on 23 Nov 2005 08:04 On comp.os.linux.misc, in <3uj516F11l3jeU1(a)individual.net>, "blmblm(a)myrealbox.com" wrote: Running a commandline newsreader does not mean you can run linux from the commandline. That's just one application, and it can be run in an xterm in X. Duh. If you really do: Anyone can paste any user-agent string they want in their headers, and people who post through individual.net are usually trolls, because that nsp doesn't include _any_ identifiers usable by ordinary Usenet denizens. And you don't even have a name in your From header... +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + + + TROLLS: Ignorant, motor-mouthed, and cowardly + + punks (often mentally ill) that run around + + the Usenet posting (usually abusive) garbage + + under multiple aliases. Usenet vermin. + + + + + +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ <body not downloaded> Alan -- URLs of possible interest in my headers.
From: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz on 23 Nov 2005 10:05
In <tMudnYgM_dM6hBnenZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d(a)is.co.za>, on 11/23/2005 at 01:26 AM, news(a)absamail.co.za said: >not...(a)nothome.com wrote: >> As a professional CAD user, I realize both the keyboard and the mouse >> are invaluble input devices. In this primarily graphic environment, >> the mouse is not only king, it's irreplaceable. I can do without the >> keyboard, but not the mouse. .... >Good !! I was thinking that only a professional CAD user would be >most qualitied to judge. Only if he's actually tried the alternatives, e.g., track balls, light pens. >Alan Connor wrote: >> This posts says Re: on the Subject line but has no References: >> header. >> >I believe the "in reference to" refers to the subject-thread ? For once he's right. A followup MUST have a References-header, >Besides I'm not much for name-dropping. The References field in the header and the attribution in the body are not name dropping, but part of the context of your article. >Contents is more important than frequent-flyer-miles credited ? References *is* part of the content. >My minimalist [no auto-threading Newsreader] OS The news reader is not the OS. >makes me 'work at the coal-face' instead of having it auto-magically >done. What news reader lacks the ability to create and propogate the References field? >Almost the opposite of the M$-outsp00k posters >who can't NOT top post, ITYM who find it easier to top post. You can construct a proper followup in outhouse; it just takes a lot more effort than it should. >But I appreciate your annoyance at posters who mess-up your >'threading system', His annoyance is not nearly as significant as the annoyance felt by the victims of his C/R spam. Google for "Alan Connor" in news.admin.net-abuse.*. >like I hate [apparently increasing lately] >htm-emailers, top-posters and these absurd rtf-characters Don't forget TNEF (ptui!) and smart (NOT!) quotes. >I'll give consideration to your point[s]. Please do so despite the source. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel> Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not reply to spamtrap(a)library.lspace.org |