The Worst Linux Advice

[Moonstone Man]

We're talking computer users, users who need to write documents, do spreadsheets, answer emails, source information from the web.

So, those of us who prefer to use the terminal for system level work aren't computer users, and aren't users who need to write documents, do spreadsheets, answer emails, source information from the web?

why do you have to learn...

Nobody is forcing their preference on you. Nobody has to learn anything.

[Megafrog]

Sorry should have used a graphical indicator

I somehow expected to add a "thumbs up" icon to this message. Oh well, I guess that's from another bulletin board.

[Megafrog]

why do you have to learn...

Nobody is forcing their preference on you. Nobody has to learn anything.

What I, RollyShed, OunceOfCommonSense and others are saying is that there is a contrary view to what Termy had written. Termy said "I would argue that the terminal is perhaps the most intuitive part of computing in Linux; " and "If anything, we partly devolved by relying so much on GUIs for everything" I presume from what was written that he really knows how to make things work exactly the way he wants them to and enjoys having a computer that works at the speed of his own thoughts.

In the past of Linux, some knowledge of the command line looked like it was necessary. But my Mon Jun 28, 2021 11:16 am viewtopic.php?p=2032252#p2032252 post pretty much shows the counterpoint I want to express whenever the command line is raised as a topic.

I'm grateful that the terminal is now not truly necessary for most things that I use on my Mint box. Unfortunately it seems like some Linux evangelists are often experts who are so joyful for the benefits and knowledge that comes with being an expert that they aren't focused on bringing a stable OS to the masses who emphatically do not WANT to go down the road of becoming an expert. If you're going to reach out to people, give them something really close to what they want. Consider how many command line smartphones are available. They would not be popular for a reason. Sometimes it is joyful not to LEARN how to do something but instead to automatically and intuitively KNOW how to do something. For many of us, that's what we feel about the GUI vs the terminal.

[motoryzen]

@Hoser Rob

WIne is a ridiculous idea and fails most of the time

I have to disagree there. ...

... Now, obviously your adobe products, MS Flight Simular, Valorant tech required games like League of Legends and Anticheat required games won't yet work in Linux, as well as Corel WordPerfect ( I've heard this depends on the individual version), but now more than ever more stuff does work in wine these days. It's slowly getting better and better.

'Yet"??? Try "never". Just look at the Wine app comaptibility database and see how well it works. BTW anything rated less than Gold won't run properly.

'Slowly' getting better than ever? I used to read that on Linux forums about 10 years ago.

It's a stupid hack that's just never going to work the way newbies think it will.

BTW anything rated less than Gold won't run properly.

That isn't always the case. Silver rated games can run plenty fine.

Also that compatibility database isn't updated daily and sometimes not even weekly. Calling wine a "stupid hack" is limited in and of itself considering its entire point and the growing success it continues to have.

You can have whatever negative attitude you wish about Wine, but that doesn't make it a stupid hack if it works and allowing Windows users who are fed up with microsoft's bs to finally leave windows in the past where some feel it belongs. *shrugs* I can see this conversation isn't going anywhere useful.

[Moonstone Man]

Unfortunately it seems like some Linux evangelists are often experts who are so joyful for the benefits and knowledge that comes with being an expert that they aren't focused on bringing a stable OS to the masses who emphatically do not WANT to go down the road of becoming an expert.

The views that you express are very narrow, almost cyclops-like, in that they miss the big picture, the history of Linux, and the drivers of the innovations that you mention, then you class those of us who see that bigger picture as 'Linux evangelists'. That's not conducive to a good exchange of ideas. In fact, one might be inclined to tell you to look long and hard in a mirror.

As Termy already clearly and unequivocally stated, use Linux as you see fit and as suits your personal preferences. It's the same with Windows, use the operating system that suits your preferences. The whole point here is that there are no winners in a discussion based on personal preference, and horses for courses is the answer.

If you're going to reach out to people, give them something really close to what they want.

Teaching grandma to suck eggs.

For many of us, that's what we feel about the GUI vs the terminal.

Let me put this bluntly. I don't care how 'you' 'feel' about either. I care about the quickest way to solve a problem and get someone out of trouble. If I offer you a terminal command to copy and paste it's because copy/paste is far quicker and easier than telling you to move your mouse here, click there, move your mouse there, click here, look for this, find that. If you don't like being advised to use the quickest way to get out of trouble then that is absolutely not my problem.

[Termy]

Yeah — to reiterate, use Linux how you want. I was only intending to clear up misconceptions. Use what makes the most sense to you, while giving you an enjoyable experience. For me, terminals give me a pleasant experience because I enjoy the efficiency and directness of it; that said, some desktop environments and GUIs in general look hella nice.

I think some of the things Kadaitcha Man above said were brash, but I don't disagree! An argument I've had a few times, for reasons against using terminals, is that not everyone gets the same great feeling I get when I use terminals, but I'm convinced they've missed the point entirely: it's about things like quantifiable improvements in efficiency and directness, not how a user feels.

I have a friend who, like me in the past, was dead-against using terminals, thinking the usual sort of stuff: "it's archaic", "I don't have to do it in Windows", "it's counter-productive", etc. Eventually, he started using Linux, set up a couple of servers, and he's learning the ropes. Now he's actually starting to see what I've been talking about all these years! Sometimes you just have to give something a proper chance to see what it's all about.

[Moonstone Man]

I was only intending to clear up misconceptions.

It really cheeses me off when people point the finger at things that aren't there.

I agree, the terminal is direct and efficient. That said, there is no shame in not wanting to use it either.

[Megafrog]

Unfortunately it seems like some Linux evangelists are often experts who are so joyful for the benefits and knowledge that comes with being an expert that they aren't focused on bringing a stable OS to the masses who emphatically do not WANT to go down the road of becoming an expert.

The views that you express are very narrow, almost cyclops-like, in that they miss the big picture, the history of Linux, and the drivers of the innovations that you mention, then you class those of us who see that bigger picture as 'Linux evangelists'. That's not conducive to a good exchange of ideas. In fact, one might be inclined to tell you to look long and hard in a mirror.

Thanks for the mirror tip; I can't believe the spinach was in my teeth like that.

It's good to have a narrow focus for a message board thread, perhaps even cyclops-like. The subject is "The Worst Linux Advice." It was not about history or drivers of innovation. It was about the reader's subjective opinion about what the "worst" things they were told about Linux. Humans will disagree and want to share why.

I don't think there was any Linux evangelism in this thread. We're not reaching out to other people in this thread, it's only Mint Forum readers who probably either have Mint installed or plan to do it. A Linux evangelist is someone who says "drop your non-Linux OS and choose a variety of Linux instead" or "Linux is better."

Wanting one type of workflow (GUI, like about 100% of commercially sold phones and PCs have) instead of another type of workflow (command line) is a value judgement about what is better. Being told to use what you do not consider to be "better" could be put into a thread called "The Worst Linux Advice."

Termy posted a nearly comprehensive case for why knowledge of the terminal is superior for every task.
I say nearly comprehensive, because I felt the terminal 1) requires time to learn or understand, which is not attractive to most users, 2) most GUIs can be used on instinct, eliminating education time so people can get directly to what they want and 3) typing something you just found on the Internet into the most secure part of your computer is not something people are always comfortable with. Not every place is a message board moderated by Linux pros.

Every GUI fan can understand and respect Termy's point. Or should, at least, since it was so clear. Comprehensive knowledge is great.
It does not always feel terminal fans don't have the same respect for the GUI perspective. Instinct leading to instant understanding of 99.9% of new user activities? That doesn't seem so immediately desirable for some reason.
The flow of understanding appears to go one way some times.

Let me put this bluntly. I don't care how 'you' 'feel' about either. I care about the quickest way to solve a problem and get someone out of trouble.

If there were a question as to why Windows and Mac are to the OS world what vanilla and chocolate are to ice cream, that attitude summarizes it. OSes with heavy command line use and Nacho Shrimp Ice Cream are niche products. If you love it, don't give it up, but the market has already spoken for many users. While it was not your intent to get anyone to switch an OS, evangelists at web sites, blogs, and social media posts (not here, we already use Mint) are reaching out to non-users to say Linux OSes are BETTER. Their "advice" is to dump the old stuff and switch to anything in Linux. FOSS advocates seem to want to do the same thing with comparisons to commercial products.

No slowdowns like Windows! No privacy violations like Google's abuse of the kernel! No patches that slow your old overpriced stuff so you need to buy new overpriced stuff like Apple! I'm sold!

Or I would have been sold on FOSS 10+ years ago if that were the whole truth.

The FOSS office programmers get it. Open and Libre became more intuitive than newer MS Office.
Mint programmers get it. A GUI with easy searching to see how to do anything built into the main menu with a click or two. Ask forum questions about uncertian function rather than "how do I...?" because it's so easy to find.
The companies that choose OSes to put on about 100% of all computers and phones sold get it. Everyday basics in GUIs can be understood faster than it takes to ask "how do I...?"
The first person to utter "a picture says a thousand words" would get it if he or she were still alive.

But does a user want to just get to a computer and use it, rather than learn something totally unfamiliar? All too often with FOSS "Better" suddenly stops being about the end user's goals and more about the evangelist. It's like a traveling salesman who tells you "I don't care what YOU want out of a product. I just came here for your money." In a weird bait-and-switch where no money changes hands but getting people to change their software choice is the goal, they sometimes think it is acceptable to add a learning curve to something that was intuitive before.

Suddenly advice to make your computing "better" can become the "worst" advice when it doesn't align with people's goals. For raw beginners, those who are not comfortable copy/pasting from strangers on the ever-untrustworthy internet, and those who schedule time to for other tasks instead of learning how to be elite users (i.e.: everyone who isn't using Linux already and many who already are), the "better" things take a different subjective turn.

I guess my comments are mostly directed at the evangelists who are not here on the board. If I were in charge of an OS to compete with Mac and Windows, it would have these interface rules:

1) GUI with as many images as possible to make it as instinctive as possible
2) Find out what people do with their PCs 99.99% of the time.
3) Have all of those features.
4) Make sure that the 99.99% activities can be done with mouse clicks alone
5) If you skip 3 and 4, presume you also skipped your ambition to compete for the Mac and Windows audience and be aware you are making a product for yourself, not them.

[Termy]

Have you ever tried teaching someone who's never used a computer before to use Windows? Let's just say it requires a lot of patience. YMMV, though.

Most of the world is at least in some way familiar with GUIs and Windows paradigms, therefore learning how to use another GUI doesn't require much actual learning, because the average computer user already learned and practised the fundamentals years ago. For example, I learned how to use a traditional setup when I was in primary school. It's the same idea in the terminal. You learn the fundamentals; thereafter is just a case of seeing what a program does and its nuances.

For people to say GUIs are easier to use and more intuitive comes from a skewed perspective; bias. I've lived extensively in both worlds, however.

To clarify: I'm not, nor will I ever say that the terminal is always the best option available to everybody, because that would be illogical and impractical.

[ajgringo619]

<snip>
I guess my comments are mostly directed at the evangelists who are not here on the board. If I were in charge of an OS to compete with Mac and Windows, it would have these interface rules:

1) GUI with as many images as possible to make it as instinctive as possible

More images <> more instinctive; sometimes this will just confuse (new) users

2) Find out what people do with their PCs 99.99% of the time.

This is impossible - nothing that people do can be focused that narrowly.

3) Have all of those features.
4) Make sure that the 99.99% activities can be done with mouse clicks alone

This is pretty much standard operating procedure with Linux Mint; the only exception I can think of is writing code. Even though I prefer the terminal - been using since Apple I - anything I'm doing now can been done via the mouse.

5) If you skip 3 and 4, presume you also skipped your ambition to compete for the Mac and Windows audience and be aware you are making a product for yourself, not them.

Personally, I'm glad that Linux is not Windows. Linux lets me do whatever I want, Windows/Mac tries to dictate what's best for me. No, thanks!

[RollyShed]

Have you ever tried teaching someone who's never used a computer before to use Windows? Let's just say it requires a lot of patience.

Yes, patience, not because of GUIs but because of the number of steps to do something that is via a Linux Mint GUI, intuitive, easy to find and logical.

A simple example - a new folder on the desktop. Two clicks via Mint, about 5 via Windows.

[Megafrog]

2) Find out what people do with their PCs 99.99% of the time.

This is impossible - nothing that people do can be focused that narrowly.

I think that it might be, at least for marketers of an OS. Email, office tasks, web browsing, music, the ability to add more programs and a minimal art package seem like the middle of a computer use Venn diagram. There is a tremendous demand to do more than that, but just about everyone wants the basics to be done really well. Mint certainly does these well out-of-the-box.

Have you ever tried teaching someone who's never used a computer before to use Windows? Let's just say it requires a lot of patience. YMMV, though.
...
For people to say GUIs are easier to use and more intuitive comes from a skewed perspective; bias. I've lived extensively in both worlds, however.

I would yield to your teaching experience for larger numbers of people; My personal case study has an N=2 but both of my parents picked it up in a day.

Now that the discussion has continued, particularly after seeing Shells ads at linuxmint.com and considering the distinction that advice could be the "worst" for one group and might be the "best" for another, I'm starting to have a change in perspective. Recalling so many of the past web forum/social media posts (not with Mint) when I first considered dropping Windows makes me think about the future that never happened.

I kept reading about how the change to 64 bit was going to be the big opportunity for Linux and FOSS to take over. Then the comically ridiculous change to eliminate the Windows 8 desktop and replacing it with Windows Phone-style tiles was the next time when Linux desktops would break through to the masses. If I had a boot camp and a VM for some of my old software I would have switched in a heartbeat but it wasn't so easy at that time. I know a lot of people who were in the same boat and stuck with what they had because the alternative took too much time and uncertainty.

Now, just at the time that something like Mint is trivially easy to use and FOSS has become so good that the switch is easy for the basics of computer use, I think quality home desktops will miss the chance to be mainstream. Cloud computing is taking over and services like Shells could make the private desktop a relic of the past for everyone but the niche markets. So many people just use the cloud for everything. They aren't interested in owning their music so much any more. Or their movies. Or their ebooks, even when Orwellian providers can rewrite or remove from your library whenever they like. Why would that ever-growing group bother owning an OS? Even Chromium could disappear and be replaced with a direct channel to an expanded version of Google Office - one that acts like a PC OS allowing additional programs. It could save the data on their servers in duplicates and never crash like a local hard drive. Since such a cloud OS could allow greater violations of everyone's privacy, it probably will happen.

So my complaint about making things easy to try to get beginners or switchers from other OSes to join in on a Linux desktop? Quickly becoming irrelevant. They'll be considered like high quality rotary telephones to many folks. Privacy and personal ownership are becoming a niche market. Niches almost always require extra work and any expectation otherwise is whimsical at best.