Why are people daunted by command line interfaces?

[Deja Q]

The CLI.

People seem to think that if one click isn't enough, it's too difficult for their grey matter to comprehend.

Now, 25 years ago, people seemed able to run a Commodore 64 without any issues. It was command line based.

What's so difficult about Linux? Which is graphical and, nowadays, eliminates the need to do most CLI-based operations whatsoever?

Could this be one excuse as to why corporations want products to be "easy to use" (aka "dumbing down") but then accuse consumers of being... dumb?

[RoyGBiv]

1. I have no idea ...

Well, I do, sorta ... the CLI is some warped poster child for the days when the only people who could work computers used punch cards. I remember videos ... well, films actually ... from when I was a kid showing these awesome MIT computer scientists sitting in a room with this monster machines typing out garbled, mystical code into something that looked like a typewriter that was connected to this other machine that spit out these cards that were then fed into this other gizmo that was attached to another doohickey that made lights go all blinky while wonky sounds invaded our ears.

Crazy stuff.

And that's the image of a computer for a lot of people. Our popular culture was flooded with it.

The Commodore 64 changed this for a lot of people, but with that device and others like it, two separate cultures began to emerge. There were those who plugged in cartridges or loaded a tape or a disc and did what they did, while there were others that messed with the interface. The former were just wanting to play a game or write a letter or whatever and didn't want to mess with getting it running. The latter liked to mess with things at a more basic level.

The more recent generations simply haven't known anything but point and click and don't want to learn anything new/old.

My only trouble with the CLI is remembering all the commands, especially Linux commands/programs I don't use regularly. And, these commands often have obscure names to the uninitiated. You mentioned "su" in another post. Would anyone who doesn't have some exposure to a Unix-like OS even know what a Super User is so that they'd think to use "su" to log in as one? And what the hell is root anyway?

This just doesn't make sense to most people: "You need to be logged in as root so you have administrative privileges before you can install software system-wide. So, type "su" and then the root password." Huh?

It's hard to explain to anyone how much simpler doing things via the keyboard often is. They have to see it and experience it, and they often don't get that far. With our GUI based culture now, keyboard shortcuts are a *must* for me, but software developers, especially of web apps, are starting to get rid of them. I have to use a program at work that doesn't recognize CTRL-V. Maddening.

[RoyGBiv]

2. Gonna ramble some more ...

There is an good discussion of a subject close to this taking place on Slashdot right now. It begins by citing an article in Compuworld written by someone who came from a Windows world and tried Living Free with Linux for two weeks. He had trouble with software installation, said so, and was then sent a flood of advice. So, he tried it again and wrote Round 2.

There's a few lines in his latter article that have caused a firestorm.

When talking about advancements in software management with Linux distributions, the author offers this gem:

In the past, users had to muck around with command lines to install Linux software, and it's perfectly possible to do that -- if you're a glutton for punishment.

This sets the stage for "It's too hard."

Then, writing specifically about Ubuntu, he describes the GUI-based process but says parenthetically:

I won't cover apt in this piece, because it's simply too confusing for newbies; even many experienced Linux experts stay away from it.

That last statement is so positively absurd it caused my ears to bleed. apt-get install openoffice <enter> OH GOD MAKE IT STOP IT'S SO HARD!

Understand, this person is not uneducated nor computer illiterate. He used MS-DOS and understands the command line, but, he claims, the CLI with Linux is more complicated. (Tell that to a Unix admin who has never used DOS trying to figuring out why the hell 'ls' doesn't freakin' work.) He's been with Windows since version 2, so he has been steeped in the Windows process. That's the system he knows, and he knows it so well, changing is extremely difficult.

To address your question one needs to understand why people like this are so daunted by the *Linux command line*. It's not the concept of the CLI itself. People can type. People can learn to use abbreviations rather quickly that seem nonsensical. Hell, look at The Lounge. Most computer users today, however, grew up with Windows. That's what they know.

I think, past all the rhetoric, technicalities, and fan-boy-ism, it's just that, for most people, it's different. People need a compelling reason, rational or not, to do "different." A flashy commercial campaign is what drives a lot of people (see Apple), but you're not going to see flashy ad campaigns for the CLI ... ever.

[qnr]

3. Well, I would think 'ever' is a relative word. I remember some flashy ads

for Infocom's text adventures :) I'm really stretching it, I know, but I thought it was humorous when it popped into my mind while reading that line.

[qnr]

4. Who knows. Me, I still use my Atari 130XE almost daily n/t

[SKKY]

5. Probably the same reason some people are daunted by a DSLR camera...

...some need the control, some just want to point and shoot. Seems to me the same mindset is at play in both scenarios.