linuxmemes

Good GUI are hard to make while a good cli is rather easy.

Nothing wrong with a GUI that does what it needs without fluff.

Is this a meme or a picture you choose. Either way, I love it! And I feel with same by the way.

I think people are just too rigid sometimes. Some workflows are better in GUIs, some are better in CLIs. They both have upsides and downsides depending on what you're doing, and it's totally fine to prefer one to the other. Just don't let your preference keep you from learning and using other great tools!

An original confession bear post? Out here in the Lemmy wilds? Excellent.

Depends on the GUI. I love having GUIs for things, but I might have a hard time deciding between using CLI to launch everything and using GNOME.

GUIs are nice. we are made for visual perception. don't feel bad about it.

often, when one sees things presented visually, such as all the files in a directory, it makes much more sense much faster than if one has to read the filenames on a console.

GUIs are actually superior for human-friendlyness in many cases, but their functionality is limited and also they can't be scripted. also it's much faster to write a CLI program than a GUI program (at least for me).

I can and will terminal things, but the GUI is there so why not?

I do too! Most of us do to some extent. If I can right click on a network icon in my taskbar and get an IP, that's cake!

But then, it doesn't work on my friends box, and it's no there after an update, and when I search for how to do it all I see is the way it used to work or i'm told it's somewhere that doesn't even seem to exist.

Gui's change, vendor to vendor, update to update, they're poorly documented, and have the most chance of being wrong or missing features.

Use your GUI's as long as they give you what you need, but learn your CLI, because it almost never changes, is well documented and works for you and all your new friends that have abandoned windows no matter which linuxy way they went.

If you

• need discoverability, or
• don't need anything composable

then sure GUIs are great.

I like both the CLI and a nice GUI. Both serve a purpose for me. For example, Dolphin is quite a good GUI for going through directories and doing some file-management. Quick, easy and clear. But when I need to copy files and do some wrangling, I like the CLI.

That's totally fine. GUIs let us theme our terminal windows, tile them, jiggle them around, maybe even make them wobbly!!!

me too, but only if it's a good gui...

GUIs are better for poring through data as a whole, like Google docs, but CLIs are better when I want to do an operation or filter through things without looking at the thing itself, ie git or grep.

I still do updates and most package installs through my terminal, but anything else I look for a GUI solution. I'm lazy.

I'm undecided with modern GUI because most modern software is just a web page now. And it will offer you a choice between boring light mode and boring dark mode.

I miss the days of GTK2 with hundreds of themes. It was one of the main reason I switched to Linux; the customization. I don't know how many hours I must have spent on gnome-look.org. Now I don't even bother to try new themes and just use Fluent-Dark. My desktop is boring and looks like everyone else that has a dark mode. I really really miss GTK2 and all my favourite themes I can't use anymore. I tried making my own and played around with Oomox but it's not the same.

But one thing that I do prefer to be GUI now is IRC. Now that there are web clients (sigh) that can display images and videos directly in the channels, chatting in text mode only is kind of annoying with all the links we are sharing.

I get CLI users, sometimes using the cli is faster and more efficient.

However I have had frequent discussions with people (all of them also avid CLI users) that set up infrastructure as code. I prefer the super understandable Gui of a tool like octopus deploy over hundreds of yaml files whose content can only be understood by doing a year long deep dive any day.

They always use the same two arguments: Infrastructure as code allows you to rebuild your entire software deployment from scratch, and the code can be versioned, thereby providing an audit trail for deployments.

In decades of software development I have exactly had to redeploy an entire network from scratch 0 times. If you're in that stage the cause is most likely hardware and re-provisioning that will probably take the bulk of your time.

About the versioning: I'm not arguing against storing deployments as yaml files, but writing them by hand is insanely inefficient. There should be a nice GUI that generates and writes these yaml files, so you don't have to know every option an value and every validation rule by heart.

Also, I am relatively certain that a tool like octopus deploy also has auditing of who deployed what software in which location.

Burn them! 🔥🔥🔥🔥

Use what makes you happy. I codify a bunch of my python shit with Textualizer (so that guifications can be used), and it makes users happy. Its not my choice, but if the user likes it, ok then.

It's pretty cool how both GUI lovers and terminal enthusiasts can have a great time using Linux

I like both, but I think I would like cli better if the syntax were more expressive, and more akin to natural human language.