Linux as a popular Desktop Operating System?

[BC_Programmer]

I often wonder when you write these long posts if you ever forget what you had started out saying by the time you were finished.

That has happened, I've had to delete quite a few paragraphs of arguments when I realize that I am arguing against the very points I made in the previous paragraph.

In this case, since so many people I know have somehow discovered I'm a "programmer" I of course am also an expert at installing video cards and building PCs. I mean, I sort of am, but that's hardly because I know a few programming languages.

Sometimes I'll be designing some sort of interface, and start thinking about how having a Graphical interface is really just a sort of appeasement. It's like we're denying people the education they might partake in if they didn't have our simplified interfaces to lean back on.

Of course, with that said, For said folks it wouldn't really matter if the Operating System was Windows, Linux, or Mac. As long as they can pretend there is nothing more complicated going on under the happy gradients and aqua buttons, they're happy.

[JJ 3000]

In this case, since so many people I know have somehow discovered I'm a "programmer" I of course am also an expert at installing video cards and building PCs. I mean, I sort of am, but that's hardly because I know a few programming languages.

I've experienced the same thing. People find out that I build and repair computers and they automatically assume that I know everything about programming.

[soybean]

you still need to go into the terminal though at times. If you never needed to go into the command prompt unless you really needed to or wanted to (like on windows), that would be great.

I agree.  I'm not a Linux expert by any stretch but my experience so far has occasionally required using Terminal to accomplish something that could be done much easier in Windows.  And, when Linux continues to move its development in a direction that requires less, indeed, almost no, need to use Terminal to accomplish something, then I believe it is bound to become more popular, meaning used by an increasing percentage of computer users. 

I know they've been moving in this direction, at least with some Linux distros, but they'll need to take this further if Linux is going to realize significant growth in percentage of computer users. 

[2x3i5x]

I don't mean you get rid of terminal completely. But the very basic stuff that most people should be able to do like install a new program or finding anew program shouldn't need terminal to do at times.

[soybean]

I don't mean you get rid of terminal completely.

Neither did I.  It will probably always be needed for certain purposes, just as a Command Prompt window is still part of Windows systems.  But, the point here is that a diminishing need to use Terminal will make Linux easier to use by less technically oriented users and could therefore increase its acceptance by many new users.

But the very basic stuff that most people should be able to do like install a new program or finding anew program shouldn't need terminal to do at times.

Have you explored all that's available via Synaptic Package Manager?  Quite a lot of software is available from it.

[ghostdog74]

Linux nowadays is very much like Windows. For example in a Fedora system, there is Dolphin, a file manager which you can do normal tasks like looking for files (much like Windows explorer), mount drives, copy/move files, etc. There is no need to use the terminal at all if you don't want to.

[soybean]

Linux nowadays is very much like Windows. For example in a Fedora system, there is Dolphin, a file manager which you can do normal tasks like looking for files (much like Windows explorer), mount drives, copy/move files, etc. There is no need to use the terminal at all if you don't want to.

Likewise, in Ubuntu, there's no need to use Terminal to copy, delete, or move files.  That can be done through the File Browser, also much like Windows Explorer.  Still, based on my experience, Terminal can not always be avoided.  And, I'm very skeptical that it can always be avoided in Fedora, as you seem to imply. 

Here's an example where use of Terminal can't be avoided to install software.  I have a Seagate FreeAgent DockStar (FADS), a device which lets me use USB drives as network drives.  By using FADS, a regular USB drive can be used in the same manner as a Pogoplug drive, and the FADS requires the Pogoplug software.  Installing Pogoplug software requires use of Terminal. 

Another example where use of Terminal can't be avoided to install software: My Brother MFC-790CW printer.  As you can see @ http://welcome.solutions.brother.com/bsc/public_s/id/linux/en/index.html, using Terminal can't be avoided, and I believe that applies to any Linux distro - Ubuntu, Fedora, or otherwise - in this case. 

[Cityscape]

what's the most popular user interface for linux? KDE, Gnome or something else?

Gnome - approx. 42%
KDE - approx. 40%
XFCE - approx. 11%

I don't mean you get rid of terminal completely. But the very basic stuff that most people should be able to do like install a new program or finding anew program shouldn't need terminal to do at times.

Installing a new program does not require Terminal usage unless your using a distro like Gentoo or Slackware. If you use a mainstream distro such as Ubuntu or Fedora, it'll be as simple as opening your package manager.

Nowadays you almost never need to use the Terminal in Linux. However many uses will still use it because they prefer it. It is a lot faster to install a program by typing "sudo apt-get install Firefox" and hit return in Terminal than it is to install the same program in Package Manger. But today the average computer user can use Linux and never touch the Terminal. That's how much the Terminal is actually needed. But is still the preferred method for trouble shooting and fixing driver problems as well as other stuff.

Likewise, in Ubuntu, there's no need to use Terminal to copy, delete, or move files.  That can be done through the File Browser, also much like Windows Explorer.

The File Browser in Ubuntu is called "Nautilus".

My Brother MFC-790CW printer.  As you can see @ http://welcome.solutions.brother.com/bsc/public_s/id/linux/en/index.html, using Terminal can't be avoided, and I believe that applies to any Linux distro - Ubuntu, Fedora, or otherwise - in this case. 

Yes, Bother printers require use of the Terminal. I have a MFC-4800 and it needs the Terminal for installation. But really it is fairly easy to set up, all you have to do is paste a few commands.

[soybean]

[quote author=Cityscape link=topic=108924.msg735349#msg735349 Installing a new program does not require Terminal usage unless your using a distro like Gentoo or Slackware. If you use a mainstream distro such as Ubuntu or Fedora, it'll be as simple as opening your package manager.
[/quote]And then, you contradicted yourself when you said:

Yes, Bother printers require use of the Terminal. I have a MFC-4800 and it needs the Terminal for installation. But really it is fairly easy to set up, all you have to do is paste a few commands.

Also, I cited another example where Terminal is needed: pogoplug

I also found, when trying to update/install a Nvidia graphics driver in Ubuntu 9.04 or 9.10,  that I had to use Terminal.  That was very frustrating.  I followed the first step in the procedure I found on the web and encountered an obstacle; a message said I needed to be in "root" to do this. At that time, I did not know how to go to root. So, back to the web to search for that technique. Then, attempted installation again an encountered another obstacle.  So, back to the web to search for that technique. Then, attempted installation again an encountered another, i.e. the third, obstacle. Tried again and got past those three obstacles and encountered a fourth.  At that point, I gave up on it.

And, yes, I tried following the procedure for installing my printer a few months ago and was not successful.  Sure, I can copy and paste commands, which I did, but the installation was not successful. I intend to revisit that again soon. 

So, again, Terminal IS needed for some software installations and sometimes searching for the procedure on the Internet can be frustrating. I've researched a particular procedure and found differences in procedures explained on different websites. And, when viewing a particular website, I've seen comments submitted by Linux users who tried the procedure and it did not work for them; worked some but not for others. 

[Cityscape]

I  believe did not contradict myself. You are obviously including driver and printer setup as installing software. Printer setup & driver installation may require using Terminal but install installing applications/software does not (unless you are installing programs from source code).

Also with your Brother Printer, you need to follow Brother's per-installation instructions as well as the standard procedure.

[BC_Programmer]

I  believe did not contradict myself. You are obviously including driver and printer setup as installing software.

Drivers ARE software.

[SilentAssasin64]

I've been using some form on Linux for about 5 years now.  The terminal is my preferred method of accomplishing tasks.  Whether it be copying/moving/deleting files, installing applications, troubleshooting, and other things.  Anytime I get on a Windows box I wish I could pop open a *nix terminal.

It more-so depends on your personal preference.  I, obviously, prefer the terminal to most GUI applications, while a lot of other people try to avoid it at all costs.

At my place of work we sell quite a number of computers and services for them.  The times where I help someone who has actually heard of *nix, let alone actually used it, are few and far between.  But, then again, the majority of our customers are 50+ in age.

[BC_Programmer]

Personally, While I can use the terminal, I prefer not to for some reason. I think it's because I don't agree with a base concept that to my understanding is part of every shell- the shell is "tasked" with expanding wildcards. I just think that's.... wrong. It makes things easier in the short term (you can just split your arguments and deal with single files at a time) but it complicates things when you need to take a special action when the user gives you a wildcard. Also, you won't find any safeguards on rm * being accidentally used, because as far as rm is concerned you said rm and then listed every file in the folder, because the shell expanded it.

It's purely preference, though. I'm used to programs being responsible for wildcard expansion, so it seems peculiar and freaky when I see it done otherwise.

Anyways, the entire point is that despite various people raving to the contrary, you don't have to drop to the terminal any more with Linux then you do with windows. Soybean states that he needed to do so in order to install a printer. So? There are a lot of hardware devices that don't have <any> driver for windows, dropping to the prompt or not; Linux drivers have a rich past and a nice set of legacy hardware drivers too, so while you might be able to drop to the console to get your printer or other device working, sometimes you simply cannot get it working for any reason in windows simply because the manufacturer decided that 64-bit wasn't important.

Also I missed where cityscape said it before: he accidentally typed "Bother Printer" rather then Brother. I think I like Bother a lot better, since it is far more descriptive.

[SilentAssasin64]

Come to think of it, there are very few reasons why I *must* open a terminal to perform my daily tasks.  Ubuntu has made installing proprietary NVidia drivers a point-and-click installation, as well as installing programs via Ubuntu Software Center or Synaptic, even things like SSH, SCP, and other things of that sort have GUI front-ends.

Only thing I can think of off the top of my head that *has* to be done in a terminal is opening gconf to move the minimize, maximize, and close buttons back to the right side in Ubuntu 10.04 =>.  But I'm sure there's something somewhere that would open it without typing it in a console.

Even when I had to change over from ALSA and Pulseaudio to Open Sound System cause ALSA wouldn't load the right drivers for my sound card it all could have been done via a GUI.

Since we are talking about popularity, though, the most used interface with *nix boxes is the CLI, namely SSH as *nix still dominates the server world.  But again, all server configurations, installations, and troubleshooting can, for the most part, be done with GUI apps.

[Cityscape]

Only thing I can think of off the top of my head that *has* to be done in a terminal is opening gconf to move the minimize, maximize, and close buttons back to the right side in Ubuntu 10.04 =>.  But I'm sure there's something somewhere that would open it without typing it in a console.

Nope, the easiest way to move the buttons back to the right side in 10.04 is to install Ubuntu Tweak (http://ubuntu-tweak.com/). All you have to do is go a settings page and check a box for the buttons to be back on the right side, if you want on the left later on just check the box that says "Left". It's that simple, and Ubuntu Tweak can also change tons of other settings too.