On Sunday 28 December 2014 13:55:50 Thierry de Coulon wrote:
> On Sunday 28 December 2014 11.51:22 Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > But I was making a serious point too.  Sometimes the CLI is faster and
> > more efficient.  Sometimes it is just different.  But I will concede
> > there are times when the GUI is much safer.  Here is a good example of
> > what I mean: something that is very fast and (too) easy on the CLI - and
> > much safer on the GUI!
> >
> > # rm -r /*
> >
> > Lisi
>
> Being a user of both - and having to help a lot of *basic* users (no harm
> meant, just a truth) the central point is "if you know the words".
>
> To use cli you need not only to know the words, but their sequence. Add to
> that that (often)  you can get a lot done (including damage) without
> getting a warning...
>
> I tend to prefer cli for what I know well how to do (partitioning is a good
> example) but GUI for what I don't master (stupidly, creating a symbolic
> link. I never remember the right sequence).
>
> What's stupid is that "modern" OS (Windows or MacOS) have labeled cli
> as "complicated" and "old fashioned", just as a verbose startup. Only those
> who understand how their system starts (which excludes most users of
> previously mentionned OSes) know how usefull all this verbosity is.

Well put.  And for something quick and simple the GUI can even be faster if 
one is already in it and would have to change to the CLI.

Lisi