[ILUG-BOM] Linux is not reliable . Windows Still rulez

Tahir Hashmi tahirbond@[EMAIL-PROTECTED]
Thu Jan 24 10:04:15 IST 2002

On Wed, 23 Jan 2002 21:39:06  
 Amish K. Munshi wrote:

>	Yes I agree with you, but I most of the work that we require to
>do is available as a GUI toolkit. And however integrated we are to the
>Linux systems, we would love to use the graphical version of linuxconf
>rather than the text version. 

There's a learning curve. When I started out, I was averse to the command line too. But as I began discovering commands for things that went click-click, I found myself using the command line more and more.

The reason is simple - it's easier to issue a command than fire up a GUI, sift thru the tabs and buttons et al. 

Say, you want to add a user to a new group. How'd you do it in GUI? Fire up Linuxconf, expand the trees till you reach the users area (I've forgotten what Linuxconf looked like, so it's a somewhat inexact reproduction), click on that user and then in his/her property sheet, specify the group somewhere. That done, you click the "Activate" button and then "Quit" hoping that things went fine. Same thing on the command line:

# usermod -G <group>[, ...] <user>

There's a command - apropos - that searches for the supplied keywords in short descriptions of all the entries in man pages. So, if you're looking for disk management commands, you can do:

$ apropos disk

and get a list of commands that have the word "disk" in their descriptions.

I don't say that GUI is bad. The user should figure out when to use what tool. As a rule of thumb, use a GUI tool when you are going to use a majority of the features it offers. So I may use LinuxConf when I get down to configuring my system after a fresh install. But not for the occasional tweaks and mods.

Tahir Hashmi (VSE, NCST)
mailme at tahirhashmi.scriptmania.com
We, the rest of humanity, wish GNU luck and Godspeed

More information about the Linuxers mailing list