|
|
|
|
|
by aluhut
3720 days ago
|
|
I'm curious. So you think, this may work as an argument? You think that if I tell my parents this, they'll suddenly start using the command line? Let me tell you how it works now: I've installed a download addon for them. Because they have no idea and before they install crap, I'll do it for them. I did not explain anything nor did I tell them that I did install that addon. They automatically clicked the red "download" icon under every youtube video they watch and it downloads the video. So short: 1 step. This is userfriendly and easy. |
|
Probably not, but that doesn't really matter as it was never the intention (if it were, there's probably a better place to write it than Hacker News).
I was offering software developers a perspective which demonstrates that the GUI/CLI distinction is mostly artificial, and that a CLI doesn't automatically mean "hard to use". After all, as others have pointed out, people managed just fine on DOS back in the day (where "managed just fine" == "shouting at machine for not doing things right", just like today).
> This is userfriendly and easy.
I don't like applying the phrase "userfriendly" to a piece of software, as it depends just as much on the user.
For example, I'm a user of youtube-dl, and I find it incredibly userfriendly: when I use it in scripts, I just write "youtube-dl" followed by flags for the appropriate behaviour. In contrast, your solution sounds really unfriendly to me. First my script would need to open a browser, and since the downloader is part of an addon, I wouldn't be able to use PhantomJS like I usually would. Instead, I'd probably have to go off and learn Selenium, assuming that Selenium drivers can use browser addons? If not, I might have to write a custom XUL app (not done that in a while!), and make sure it's compatible with the addon. Does XUL even work on a headless machine (in my case, RaspberryPi with SSH access)?