@jr - I don't drive myself so your analogy is kind of lost on me ;-) I do get your point however but I would also add that most users do not want to be better computer administrators, they use a computer to actually get something done (type a report, email their family, print a picture, record their music, make funny pictures using Photoshop, keep track of their accounts with a spreadsheet etc). There is no need for everybody to be a car mechanics but of course, a driver should understand the basics of how a car works so they can identify faults when they occur and take the right action (put petrol in car, get the oil level checked, get tyres checked, bring car to garage etc). So a basic understanding of a computer is useful to make sure you can keep it running most of the time (when you can't, you call in your geeky friend ;-) ) but there is no need for all users to know everything about their computers.
As we are with the analogy and I enjoy analogies anyway, do you know how your house is built? Can you fix everything in there? Probably not, but I bet you're glad that you can keep it running - you know where to switch off the electrics if you need to, where the stopcock is, how to keep it warm in winter, and so on. You also know who can help you with specific issues (tradesmen are the "geeks" in the house analogy). Now, imagine this: Person A: "well, there is this better kind of house but you can't have it unless you know how to fix everything in it". Person B: "OK, I'd like to learn because it looks like a really cool house so where do I start?" Person A: "well, you take this big power tool and drill a hole." Person B: "I'm not very confident with power tools. I know how to use a hand drill though, could you show me where to drill the hole please?" Person A: "No, you must use a power tool. You can't possible drill a hole with a hand drill, that wouldn't work." Person B: "But I'd be more confident starting that way." Person A: "No, you must use a power tool for everything straight away." This might be a cheeky analogy but this is how the Linux community sometimes feels... ;-) I never said "automated GUIs". CLI options can be presented in a GUI with documentation available when you click the "?" button for example. There is no need to dumb anything down, just to be a bit more graphical in the way an app interact with the user (who may choose to use the CLI but it should be a choice, not an obligation). In some instances, a GUI could also say "for such and such options, use the CLI". Like it or not, users are getting used to touch screens and such, so having to type in text (or copy and paste text) seems a bit unfriendly to them. GUI is only about presentation and interaction, it's not about anything automated, it's not about content. I'm thinking about Windows config utility, it's a simple GUI that does its job clearly - many Windows users have managed to administer their system using it (to find out which services freeze their systems at boot for example) and I'm not sure they would have managed to do the same with a CLI, they might have just thought "Windows doesn't work anymore"/"I need to reformat my drive and reinstall Windows". -- Next meeting: Crown Hotel, Blandford Forum, Tuesday 2010-11-02 20:00 Meets, Mailing list, IRC, LinkedIn, ... http://dorset.lug.org.uk/ How to Report Bugs Effectively: http://goo.gl/4Xue
