[maxhille]

I prefer config files a lot to settings GUIs. Two most important points that come to mind:

1. I can manage them in Git 2. GUIs change all the time. With configs you have a much higher probability that some solution you googled will still work even when it is a couple of years old.

[grishka]

But GUIs show you all available options without having to read the docs. They only change when you install updates. You can simply not install updates that you don't like.

[seec]

Linux fanboys are completely delusional, if we listened to them, we would design an airliner cockpit with a keyboard and a single display to run a terminal and input everything as commands.

They have just invested too much of their ego into knowing the arcane commands (and typing them well and fast) when it doesn't have much value, so they try to get dividends on that poor investment any way they can.

There is no reason to not make a proper GUI for pretty much everything, unless the devs are lazy or trying to save time/money.

[Nextgrid]

> There is no reason to not make a proper GUI for pretty much everything

Until you realize there are like 10 competing "standards" for settings, from config files in various incompatible formats in random places (not even obeying the XDG standard paths), to GSettings which is a Windows registry knockoff (and I bet KDE has its own - incompatible - equivalent), etc.

And don't you dare try to centralize all that into a common system - last time someone tried something similar by centralizing system service management with systemd, people lost their shit. Orders of magnitude more effort has been wasted ranting and arguing about it than fixing its issues (if they were real in the first place, and not just theoretical or outright made up).

[seec]

Well I understand what you mean. At an individual developer level, it may look like it's not worth the trouble and just go with a simple terminal-based interface and a simple text file configuration.

But that's basically giving up because things look too hard. And this is why, even when there is a GUI, it tends to be pretty bad on Linux. There is an incentive problem.

As for the various competing standard and other nonsense (how many goddam distros are there in the first place?) its just inherent to the Marxist type of organisation, where there is no process to decide who has power and everyone is given equal weight in decision power regardless of their qualities (or lack thereof).

Linux as a thing just works because there is a benevolent dictator for the core part (paid by the "nasty" corporation the Linux zealots keep complaining about) and they get a lots or "second-hand" use of tools that were developed for other reasons.

The GUI problems just highlight the inherent weakness of this type of organisation/way of working, and makes you appreciate capitalism/meritocracy and commercial OS a lot more.

To be fair, the situation has improved for some specific distros but the only way to significantly change things would be to make it a commercial operation. This is what was tried with Ubuntu, and all the zealots are fighting everything tooth and nail; complaining about any meaningful improvement (recently, "snaps").

So, yes, I realize, but in my opinion it's still not a valid reason to not make a GUI. There are options. Or you can just forget Linux and make the tool with a GUI for an OS where it will be appreciated.

[grishka]

I mean I know how to use a unix system through the terminal, it's a basic skill for a software engineer, but I'm not enjoying any of that. Most CLI software is ridiculously user-hostile too. Oh you don't remember whether it's "update" or "upgrade"? Or which order the parameters need to be? Or whether it's one dash or two? Well fuck you, go read some manuals and come back when you're ready.

And it's not just discoverability. A well-designed GUI is impossible to get into an invalid state. A CLI, on the other hand, offers infinite possibilities for invalid commands.

[seec]

Using commands is nothing special and can barely be considered a "skill" (you are just typing stuff instead of pushing buttons, no significant difference).

But since it's obtuse and need a large investment (memory for command retention, typing proficiency and other tricks), people who had to suffer through that associate their ego with it and declare it superior so they can shame other people into compliance (even though they would be wasting time).

As you said, a command interface allows you to shoot yourself in the foot in about a million ways, therefor it is a terrible tool.

It is like having to handle a knife that is extremely to avoid cutting yourself with because it has no handle and has an edge on both sides. Makes absolutely no sense, someone who doesn't complain about such a "tool", is an idiot.