back to article Sysadmins! There's no shame in using a mouse to delete files

I am curious about the thought process of some systems administrators. When Linux is mentioned in an El Reg article, the discussion in the comments section can collapse into a tired debate of GUIs versus CLIs: a bitterly fought war over point-and-click visual interfaces in software versus typing out lines of commands and …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. IHateWearingATie
    Mushroom

    Mr Pott...

    Can I be the first to say that this kind of reasoned article has no place on El Reg. Please read Andrew Orlowski and others to better understand the frothing, sarcasm laden, biased invictive that has made this website what it is today

    Thanks you

    1. lurker
      Joke

      Re: Mr Pott...

      Indeed! Where's the anti-environmentalist anti-"freetard" angle? Anyone would think this was some kind of IT forum.

      You could have at least thrown in some kind of Apple vs Non-Apple flamebait!

      1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

        Re: Mr Pott...

        But...but...this was my trolling article! Chris even came up with the most trolly possible title!

        Clearly I need to spend more time under my bridge.

  2. Andraž 'ruskie' Levstik

    Hehe

    I must say I do a lot of stuff via CLI but yes some things just aren't workable via CLI. I'll use a GUI webbrowser. True one that supports vi like keys and keyboard navigation. I'll rdesktop since managing windows is still a GUI approach and that's not necessarily bad.

    Use what works best of what you need. But I must say that I've learned so much more about how things work with CLI vs GUI that it's sad how things are masked.

  3. Badvok
    Meh

    Job Security

    Totally agree that anyone who can't use both is going to struggle to get much done on any OS.

    But I feel that those who favour the CLI are those who like to protect their job by ensuring it is only those fully initiated into the inner-circle that can ever hope to understand and support what they have done.

    It all depends on whether you want an easy life and focus on the important things or whether you really want to ensure that application X uses a 64K buffer to talk to application Y on the third Friday of any month with an 'r' in it rather than the default 48K buffer.

    1. chr0m4t1c

      Re: Job Security

      Er, no, not even close.

      GUI is almost always good for the first-time quick-setup stuff, but it very rarely gives you an optimal solution and when it goes wrong you will find that your inexpensive, inexperienced administrator is probably so out of their depth that you will only find them by searching the Mariana Trench. At that point, fixing things will get very expensive very quickly.

      The article is entirely correct, both are useful tools. I recently set up a VPN server and the GUI allowed me to create all of the configuration files in about 5 minutes by answering a few questions. The CLI allowed me to quickly tailor the configuration in ways that were impossible via the GUI *and* it allowed me to copy the tested configuration from the VM test server to where I wanted to deploy it in seconds without needing to make any further changes.

      What you're talking about is the difference between a fitter and a mechanic. Both can do basic jobs competently, but when you have a real problem the fitter will only be able to suggest replacing random(ish) parts in the hope one of them fixes the problem, whereas the mechanic will diagnose the actual problem and do what is necessary to fix it (which might be something as simple as tightening a nut). That's why fitters are paid £10/hour and mechanics £50+.

  4. Ninetailed

    I agree entirely with the sentiment behind this post. I can't help but shake my head whenever I see a GUI versus CLI "debate", and just carry on using both side by side.

  5. Flocke Kroes Silver badge

    No need to learn new command line tools for every OS

    If all else has failed, and you have to use Windows, install Cygwin so all your favourate Linux command line tools will be available.

    The amount you have to learn is not that big either. The name of the command is plenty as almost all of them will explain themselves if you type:

    command --help

    If you cannot remember the name of the command to handle some topic:

    man -k some_topic

    The commands you need to get started are:

    man man

    man bash

    info info

    Those are the manual pages for reading the manual and using the shell, and the info page for using the info documentation library. If there are some details of a command you cannot remember, read the manual. If you are dealing with a new topic, try info. After a couple of months, you will find things in the manual far more quickly than by clicking on all the menu entries and reading all the options in the dialog boxes.

    There are some tasks that are best handled with a GUI, but if you have to do something once, then there is a bad chance you will have to do it again. If you got the job done using the command line, then it takes almost no work to get atd or cron to do it for you in future.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I prefer CLI over GUI because of RSI!

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Trevor, I don't think any of the commenters in your last article were saying that GUIs are inherently bad. You just reacted as if they were.

    I certainly wasn't saying that, and particularly not as far as the desktop is concerned. In general this article makes a fair amount of sense, but I don't think it really addresses the points which were raised in the comments on your last article.

    I was making a couple of subtly different points which didn't seem to be fully grasped: firstly, that Linux is inherently a CLI-based system, and that adopting this mindset is going to work much better for you over the long-term if you want to become a professional and competent Linux admin; and secondly, that IMHO webmin is not in general an appropriate thing to be running on a professionally-administered, live, Internet-facing production server.

    "I am curious about the thought process of some systems administrators."

    OK, great. Hopefully that means you'll have a good listen to what experienced administrators are saying and think about taking it on board rather than saying their "entire argument is bullshit".

    1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

      And I completely disagree with you on your points.

      A GUI is a tool; it has a place, even on production servers. You haven't offered anything to explain why it shouldn't be there excepting your own personal bias.

      Your arguments are based entirely off the base that "proper sysadmins use the CLI." The GUI thus being equivalent in your version of the universe to training wheels. Again; I disagree. Your entire perspective on the GUI vs CLI debate is pretty cracked. Listen carefully here: GUIs are perfectly fine things for administering servers, production, testbed and otherwise. So are CLIs. Better to have the option of both.

      Quit limiting yourself, and for the love of His Noodly Self, quit advocating the limitation of others, just because you want to believe in the sacred power of your secret nerd club. No, the CLI is not "what a proper sysadmin uses, to the near exclusion of the GUI." I fundamentally reject that premise. I also reject the idea that you need to be tossed into the CLI deep end to learn the CLI.

      More to the point, I reject your unspoken assertion that people are only "experienced administrators" when they agree with your views on how systems administration should be done. Seems to me there are quite a few very experienced administrators - myself included - who disagree with you.

      So I’m back to “I want to know how your brain works.” Preferably with some DNA samples so I see if the issue is socialised or genetic.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Trevor, if you're got some inferiority complex about your use of the GUI then it might be an idea to stop projecting it onto Linux/Unix administrators who have more experience than you do and who really aren't impressed with your personal attacks on the way they do things which has arisen through many years of experience and understanding that's clearly far in advance of your own. You're not making the effort to read what I'm saying or to understand it properly, and it's really getting very tiresome. I strongly advise you to give up trying to make it look like you know what you're doing with Linux and go back to your Microsoft articles. You'd be doing us all a favour.

        1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge
          Pint

          Just so we're clear here - and I think it's important to be - I don't have a problem with a Linux administrator who decides he wants to run his own Linux systems in a GUIless fashion. In certain circumstances (embedded, high-density-every-MB-of-RAM-matters, ultra-high security requirements) I can understand why it might be necessary or desirable.

          But I do take issue with those administrators who feel it is necessary to lash out against others who choose to maintain a different set of tools on their servers. I especially have issues with those – like yourself – who can offer nothing excepting rhetoric to back up your decision.

          Your arguments are consistently based on unproven assumptions about human learning patterns that simply don’t hold up to empirical testing. You even trot out appeal to authority without defining that authority in anything but the vaguest of terms. “More experience than me” is one you use…except there are plenty of Linux administrators in senior positions with decades more experience than me who agree with my take on this.

          You bust out the “no true Scotsman” fallacy by implying that anyone who doesn’t agree with you isn’t a “real” systems administrator and – by virtue of disagree with you – obviously doesn’t know what they are talking about. That borders carefully on merging no true Scotsman with argument from personal incredulity.

          Other sysadmins can do whatever they want. If however they want to belittle the rest of us for choosing not to limit our options, I believe it is incumbent upon them to do a damned through job of explaining their position, and backing it up with primary sources.

          The whole debate has certainly devolved into ad homenim on both sides. Separate from my professional disagreements – and they certainly appear to be pretty fundamental – I believe your approach to this has been pretty damned douchey. You repeatedly assert yourself as superior in knowledge, character and professional capability without offering anything to back it up.

          You attack me and my credibility based on assumptions and your own personal predjudices. I think that’s pretty damned douchy. Instead of attempting to have a rational debate about the topic you have made assertions grounded in obvious logical fallacies followed by personal and professional ad homs.

          So if I obtain the impression that you, personally, may be unwell please understand that this analysis is entirely separate from the professional disagreement occurring regarding the use (or not) of GUI administration tools in various circumstances.

          I am perfectly willing, capable of (and in fact, rather enjoy) having the CLI/GUI/Both debate in a dispassionate, professional setting backed by plenty of evidence, experimentation and so forth. That said, when I believe that you personally are a giant dong, don’t be surprised if I troll you.

          After all, I have to do something amusing while yum runs 1064 package updates...

          1. Tank boy
            Linux

            Well put.

            Out here in the wild there is more than one way to skin a cat.

  8. Philip Storry
    Pint

    I fall more towards the CLI camp

    GUIs are nice, but they change. Because CLIs are often scripted, they become an API, and therefore don't change much over the years.

    A CLI is also, perversely, easier to document - documenting a process for a GUI often results in 20 pages of screenshots, with no real detail about what you're actually DOING. Whereas a CLI document is often much shorter, so people feel they should pad out the document with a little explanation...

    Sometimes, a GUI is superior - as others have pointed out, some selections can be hard to do with CLIs. Although if we had tools for the CLI like 4DOS/4NT/Take Command's SELECT, we'd be laughing there too.

    What I really wish is that each played to their strangths more. I've seen too many GUIs that should have had some decent reporting or status monitoring, but were instead just bunches of buttons and checkboxes.

    Conversely, I've seen CLI administered programs that were pretty poor, with minimal scripting (required input during the program) and more of an "edit the config file" attitude than actually providing a tool to make the change.

    There is no panacea. Which is lucky, as it keeps us all employed...

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    IT was invented to automate stuff. GUIs have retarded the development and progress of that goal.

    1. Gav
      FAIL

      No, it wasn't

      In that case, your input was not required, automation will handle responses to this article without you.

      Or are you telling us you are browsing this website using a CLI browser?

      1. Ru
        Megaphone

        Re: No, it wasn't

        A quick test reveals that el Reg and its commentary are useable via Lynx. I don't imagine that many would make a habit of it though...

  10. Jimboom
    Childcatcher

    Funny

    I had the experience of teaching some young IT apprentices last year and helping them get their Comptia A+ certification. When we got to learning command line there was all sorts of grumbles of "why would I ever need to know this?" and "I'm never going to use this, I can do this all in windows.". At the time I never thought that they were going to learn what I considered very basic commands.

    Now, a year on the 1 young man who has done quite well for himself has told me that knowing those few simple command lines has helped him to not only do his job, but to progress his learning far beyond that of the certification.

    I say use whatever you are comfortable with. Personally I think both have a time and a place. But even now I still make simple little script files to do simple things quickly. Makes my life easier.

    But then again I find Exchange 2010 easier to administrate in GUI, even though I know there are certain things I can only do in Powershell.

    Just depends on what job you are trying to accomplish and what you feel comfortable with. But restricting yourself to one or the other simply on the fact that a CLI or GUI is what it is, well thats just plain crazy!

    1. Jimboom
      Childcatcher

      Re: Funny

      And the further point of that IT apprentice story was that without him first learning to use GUI he would never have even known about let alone used CLI

  11. vagabondo

    CLI !== Text Shell

    OSs are not restricted to one shell, and most shells are available on more than one OS. So learn a flexible shell and use it everywhere. Text shells have the advantage of also being scripting languages. Google shell is more of an apllication than a general purpose shell, so its shrtcomings as such are irrelevant.

    "If you really know what you're doing" surely a sine qua non for anyone claiming competence as a SysAdmin.

    1. Ramazan

      Re: CLI !== Text Shell

      job doesn't end with a shell (unless it's some kind of a Perl/Python shell with thousands of libs installed). You'll also need the whole POSIX environment (awk/grep/sed/pwd/find/etc).

  12. Rich 2 Silver badge

    Remote Control

    One of the single biggest advantage of the CLI over a GUI is that using a CLI, you can easily remote log-in to whatever machine you like and do stuff. This is simply not possible with a GUI. Yes, I know (and it pains me to admit that I have to sometimes use) that there are remote GUI/desktop things available, but since when did passing video over the network just to run a script become a "good idea"? It's a bloody stupid and clonky idea! This, incidentally, is one of my biggest gripes with Windows - it doesn't have a useful command line and you can't remote log in to it anyway; you have to use stupidly inefficient KVM systems to achieve what you could achieve for free and out of the box with any other OS.

    Another huge advantage of a CLI is that you can script it, and automate it. I have loads of scripts that do stuff that would be inordinately tedious and time consuming with GUI (even if it were possible at all).

    Of course, (as you already pointed out), GUI systems tend to hide settings data etc, which means that if something goes wrong, it can be very difficult to work out what; it's all simply too opaque. Pretty, but opaque.

    Of course, if you want to browse the web (to post stuff up on the Reg for example) then a GUI is great. It's just a crap idea for administering a computer system.

    1. Alister

      Re: Remote Control

      "This, incidentally, is one of my biggest gripes with Windows - it doesn't have a useful command line and you can't remote log in to it anyway; you have to use stupidly inefficient KVM systems to achieve what you could achieve for free and out of the box with any other OS."

      Windows comes with a telnet server or remote desktop - neither are ideal, I admit, but to say "you can't remote log in to it anyway" is complete bollocks.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Remote Control

        > Windows comes with a telnet server or remote desktop..

        Wow. Telnet now that's going to be secure. Clear text user names and passwords over the network.

        As for remote desktop, as the original commentator said:

        but since when did passing video over the network just to run a script become a "good idea"?

        1. Alister

          Re: Remote Control

          @AC

          >Wow. Telnet now that's going to be secure. Clear text user names and passwords over the network.

          If you're going to quote me, at least do it in context. I said:

          Windows comes with a telnet server or remote desktop - neither are ideal, I admit, but to say "you can't remote log in to it anyway" is complete bollocks.

          It's also trivially easy to add an SSH server to Windows...

      2. Wensleydale Cheese

        Re: Remote Control

        @Alister

        "Windows comes with a telnet server or remote desktop - neither are ideal, I admit, but to say "you can't remote log in to it anyway" is complete bollocks."

        The trouble with telnet in the remote login context is that it passes usernames and passwords in the clear.

        Many of us swittched to ssh years ago and now routinely disable telnet server.

        Life would be much simpler for those of us working in multiplatform environments if Microsoft would provide an ssh client and server for their products.

        1. Alister

          Re: Remote Control

          @Wensleydale cheese

          I agree entirely, and always prefer to install an ssh server if I have to deal with windows boxen.

          However, I was answering the original poster who said "you can't remote log in to it anyway"" referring to windows. He made no mention of secure access or otherwise.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Remote Control

      Um, remote desktop is pretty much standard on Windows servers now isn't it? As it pains me to admit, its actually quite good to use, especially vs things like VNC, presumably because its tied deeply into the desktop code.

      Horses for courses and all that.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Thumb Up

      Re: Remote Control

      Windows now has a WinRS (remote shell), for all your remote text-based login needs! It's not enabled by default, you have to first configure WinRM - easiest way = winrm quickconfig

      You have also got remote PoSH too if you want it.

    4. Keith Langmead

      Re: Remote Control

      Surprised no one's mentioned PowerShell, which certainly since v2 has included the ability to remotely administer systems!

      1. Philip Storry

        Re: Remote Control

        Kind of.

        Yes, PowerShell can connect to a remote machine and yes you can administer it.

        But have you tried it for anything but Windows stuff? For example, Exchange Server? It's not very smooth. If I SSH to a Linux/BSD based MTA, I'm fine - every tool that's installed on that box is now available to me. If I run them, because I'm actually running on the remote machine, there are no issues. It all just happens over port 22, which is basically an encrypted text pipe. (I simplify, but not by much.)

        If I connect to an Exchange Server via PowerShell, I need a port 80 connection with which to fetch the special PowerShell tools that Exchange needs. I then have to create a new session on that machine, and import that session into my current session.

        (See http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd297932.aspx for details.)

        It's the same for SQL Server and other Microsoft server software.

        You could view this as a security boon, albeit security by interface obfuscation. Personally, I view it as a bloody stupid way to work. The *NIX method is both more seamless and intuitive. PowerShell still has some way to really rival it.

  13. This post has been deleted by its author

  14. Dave 62

    Do you get paid to write stuff like this? I once wrote a story about a dog and his friend who was also a dog. Can I have a job at El Reg?

  15. Pinkerton
    Megaphone

    At the risk of stating the obvious...

    > Forum denizens the internet over seem to view CLI versus GUI as a binary choice

    It's not just CLI vs GUI.

    Human nature seems to err towards *everything* being a binary choice! Whether it's Windows vs Linux, Labour vs Conservative, Man-made Climate Change vs Natural Cyclic Climate Change, Today's Music vs When I Were A Lad, Bitter vs Lager and so on.

    I reckon that for any given debate, those that are willing to see all the various hues of grey are in the minority with most commentators firmly at one pole or another.

    1. Gav
      Headmaster

      Re: At the risk of stating the obvious...

      Not actually human nature, more like immature human male behaviour. The sort of mentality that leads to extreme fanboism, or any other obsessive devotion to mundane things.

      I always reckon it's a manifestation of adolescent development among boys, where everything is a competition and everything you do has to fit in with your chosen peer group, and must be demonstrably better than the other groups. After all, if what you buy/do/read/listen/enjoy/pursue/believe/support/create/learn is not obviously so much better than what they buy/do/read/listen/enjoy/pursue/believe/support/create/learn, how are people to know that you are better than them? Stands to reason. Therefore it must be pointed out forcefully and often, less people miss what is obvious.

      It's just a pity that some take a whole lot longer to grow out of that than others.

      1. Ramazan

        Re: must be demonstrably better than the other groups

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Humane_Interface

  16. Patrick Evans
    Meh

    Good grief

    Anyone bothering to even debate the absolute merits of one against the other needs to grow up. Anyone who refuses to do so needs to be put against a wall and shot.

  17. wheelybird

    Servers

    Well of course you should use the correct tool for the job. I use a GUI on my desktop, and you know what; I often use a GUI file manager to copy and browse files!

    However, I find that I can't do that so easily on remote, production servers on account of not running a GUI on them and in fact not installing the libraries I'd need to use to run a GUI on them even if I wanted to. Crazy! So when you're talking about being a *LINUX SYSADMIN*, you perhaps shouldn't be surprised that people flame you for telling people to use a GUI.

    Your articles, despite the titles, simply aren't aimed at professional sysadmins and the advice you give for novice/trainee Linux sysadmins won't be applicable for a large number of Linux installations.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Servers

      > So when you're talking about being a *LINUX SYSADMIN*, you perhaps shouldn't be surprised that people flame you for telling people to use a GUI.

      Have to agree with you with this. Any Unix/Linux sysadmin should be able to do their job using the CLI only. This doesn't mean they can't use a GUI if available, just that they should be able to do without it.

      Up until I retired a couple of years ago, I would say about 90% of the servers I've administered were incapable of running any form of GUI.

  18. Anonymous Coward
    Windows

    Standardisation

    "Lack of standardisation is another issue; we don't live in a utopia where every operating system uses the same CLI. I, for one, have zero interest in learning a new CLI for every OS. It will take me quite some time to become as familiar with the intricacies of PowerShell for Windows as I am with Bash and its fellow tools."

    This is actually partly true, there actually /is/ some (minor!) form of standardisation at work here. To be honest I'm a little disappointed that this wasn't noticed.

    In Bash (or Ksh which is my favourite) or 'sh' (to save typing) you use ls to, well.. you know. However, modern Linux distributions also tend to honor the "dir" command.

    In PowerShell ("PS") you tend to use 'dir' but it will also easily accept the usage of "ls".

    Removing files? rm in sh obviously, PS also accepts this just like it allows "del" to be used.

    Now; in the end these are all aliases, the syntax of PS is actually a /whole/ lot different than any CLI environment I'm familiar with.

    But here is where the 2nd standardisation comes into play. When I'm at a loss on a *NIX commandline then I try to use the "man" command. This has helped me get up to speed on Solaris after not having used it for 6 years, it helped me get around HP/ux (iirc) a little.

    Actually the command I used was "man man" because I needed to check up on how I could search for something, but you get the idea...

    You may have guessed it by now but "man" is also an alias which is accepted by PS and it gives you the main help screen about the "Get-Help" command. PS will even happily accept "man man" which gets you into the same help screen.

    SO yes; I concur that PowerShell is a /whole/ lot different than Bash on Linux or a Korn shell on Solaris. But I also think that by adding those *nix -like aliases Microsoft has actually honoured a form of standardisation by itself. Which IMO does them some credit.

    Having a *nix background myself I have to say that I found PS relatively easy to find your way around in.

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

  19. LinkOfHyrule

    Windows using Idiot here...

    I sometimes type things such as search queries and passwords using the on screen keyboard - I consider myself fully bi-mousual in this respect rather than to lazy to reach forward ten inches and use the keyboard! I don't need to use command lines for work related stuff or anything and I certainly have not memorised any commands but have been known to go native under special circumstances. Maybe next time the need arises I will be mousing my commands into the console window rather than fingering my way in using the keyboard, who knows, might give it a whirl!

    I actually started using the on screen keyboard because for a while I shared a computer with a disabled person who could not type and his keyboard was literally, underneath his desk as he never used it!

    1. geekclick
      Meh

      Re: Windows using Idiot here...

      Then you are..

      A: Not a sysadmin

      or

      B: Not trying hard enough or never have anything to do that would be considered tricky..

      Exchange 2010, most stuff is and can be done via GUI, if you want to restore a mailbox from a DPM backup then PowerShell is a MUST!

      Want to see who has a file open and locked to them from a network share? Command prompt all the way..

      It is horses for courses but to get to sysadmin status and not be at least proficient in both GUI and CLI is foolish...

      No offense but i see too many boys and girls taking the first step in IT and not have the first clue about command prompt and or powershell, it makes me sad..

      1. Arrrggghh-otron

        Re: Windows using Idiot here...

        >Want to see who has a file open and locked to them from a network share? Command prompt all the way..

        You can do that from 'Computer Management' -> 'Shared Folders' -> 'Open Files'

        You can close the open files from there too...

  20. Christian Berger

    Some things are certainly wrong

    For example we do live in a world where virtually all OSes have the same CLI. By now you can have, virtually every shell on virtually every system. And even the default shells are so simmilar the layperson wouldn't even notice a difference. The notable exception is Windows, but you can get Cygwin there. (which you need anyhow to get things done)

    So stating "I don't want re-learn the shell for every operating system" as a reason is simply not a valid argument.

    But then again, reason has no place in IT.

  21. Tom 38
    Joke

    Of course you need to use both

    You to need to use the GUI to launch xterm.

    Seriously though, this is all about personal choices. For me, it is easier to tap in "CTRL+SHIFT+T, eog /path/to/pics" than it is to "launch nautilus, browse to a folder, right click a file and choose launch in eye of gnome".

    For lots of others, it is different, but for me, almost everything is done in a terminal, but I still use a GUI to manage my terminals - I know refuseniks who simply use no GUIs, just hi res consoles. I suppose you could call the SVGA graphics mode of the browser links as a GUI...

    1. Ramazan
      FAIL

      You to need to use the GUI to launch xterm

      I hooked it on Win-Y key combo (xbindkeys).

    2. h3

      Re: Of course you need to use both

      You don't need to use the gui to launch xterm you can do it from .xinitrc or .xsession

      1. vagabondo

        @h3 Re: Of course you need to use both

        Did you miss the Joke icon?

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like