- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ca/post/27756512
(Apologies if the link doesn’t work; Google are dicks)
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ca/post/27756512
(Apologies if the link doesn’t work; Google are dicks)
What exact GUI controls does linux lack that windows doesn’t?
To be honest, a lot of system configuration is better done on the CLI or editing configuration files manually (see the majority of the audio stack). I like that approach way more than Windows but even the System Registry in Windows is more “GUI-like” than editing ALSA files or pam.d files manually (usually on the cli as they mostly require sudo). This scares people.
You want the most common things available in a Settings app(s) as they generally are on Gnome, KDE, Windows and Mac. If we cram too much stuff in there regular people struggle. Finding a good balance is a dilemma for most platforms. You want the less obvious stuff to be available in additional specialist “tweak” apps for more experienced users as they often are on all these platforms but sometimes less so on Linux. Then the really esoteric stuff you have to edit registry settings, conf files and plists as you do on all of them. Linux tends to provide more power and flexibility but requires reading documentation due to the diversity of config methods and locations.
A Mac user very sensibly contacted me worried about pasting a command to edit a plist into the terminal from a website they found trying to fix an issue. Nobody should be pasting commands they don’t understand into terminals. A quick search and I found the GUI toggle to do the same thing. It isn’t exclusively a Linux issue. Windows and Mac have complex operating systems underneath and equivalently powerful command line tools.
GUI config isn’t practical for hardcore linux users. It isn’t scriptable, we can’t store it in version control, it is harder to document, it is harder to use remotely. We have to appreciate that we have a growing number of users where it is worth taking a bit more time and sharing an alternative if one exists. However nobody wants to configure services in a GUI as we want to version, document and distribute this stuff and managing services in a GUI is unprofessional because you lose these things.
and this is apparently a “problem”… people shy from the command line and fail to realize “we” continue to use it, not because there is no GUI alternative but because it is simply awesome!
He’s specifically using Ubuntu Gnome, which feels a lot less complete than even Linux Mint Cinnamon. Gnome doesn’t want you to customize it at all. I’m surprised they give you a master volume slider.
I used gnome though. IIRC, everything to do with customising GNOME is done through extensions, and all extensions have GUI settings menus.
My point being, even though it’s objectively harder to customise GNOME, it still doesn’t require using the terminal.
I mean, I hate Gnome and I think their work actively harms the Linux ecosystem. Gnome is deliberately unfinished. They have an artistic vision, and that artistic vision is blank uselessness is beautiful. They hate settings, they hate options. They get rid of as many settings and options as they can. Which means their UI feels incomplete to most people who try it for the first time coming from basically anything else. It’s so bad that third parties maintain “extensions” to add those options back in, and Gnome does everything they can to break those because their artistic vision does not include options. The ideal Gnome utility is a blank window with a button in the top bar that says “Never Mind.”
Many people trying Linux for the first time fail to find a setting in the options menu, conclude that Linux as a whole is dumb and bad and incapable because there’s no check box that puts the dock on the side or bottom of the monitor, you tell them to go install GnomeTweaks from the package manager, they point crotchward and say “Install this.” And they’re right, Gnome is unfinished and it’s not the end user’s job to finish it for them. Windows 95 had a robust system for changing the system theme, Gnome demanded we stop doing that.
I think you’re right in that most Gnome users don’t customize the GUI from the terminal, they install extensions. But if you ask a narrow question on a support forum, you’ll probably be told to run a terminal command, because that’s usually how Linux veterans communicate narrow answers to narrow questions over text-based media, and it’s also how a lot of system admin stuff like changing anything that ends up in /etc is done. I’ve never seen a GUI utility for editing fstab, everyone says to do that in the terminal. Gparted or Gnome-Disk-Utility might do it? I know KDE at least used to have the attitude that admin stuff should be done via the terminal. Dolphin and KATE didn’t have the option to Open As Root because they felt if you know enough to mess with the system directly you know enough to use the terminal to do so.
There are also just so many settings that just don’t reasonably have a GUI. Give you a personal example, I’m using an old speaker system that has a very hot external amplifier, every time the motherboard’s audio circuit would turn on or off the speakers would make a loud pop. I had to edit a couple files to change a 1 to a 0 and a Y to an N to stop that from happening. In Windows that would be a setting buried somewhere in Sound Settings > Volume > Advanced > More Options then the Power Saving tab or something, or maybe a registry key you’d use regedit to change. On Mint I could do it with Nemo and Xed, on some distros you have to use the terminal and something like Nano or Vim to change that setting. And newbies who probably didn’t choose their hardware for Linux compatibility and having to do workarounds to compensate are more likely to have to do stuff like that.
For what he said is more that when he search for something he only finds CLI commands, he just doesn’t know about the GUI controls.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ , I can do every normal thing I wanna do in a GUI on Fedora