Not everything actually requires a GUI, obviously. But anything that requires configuration, especially for controlling a hardware device, should have a fully functional GUI. I know Linux is all about being in control, and users should not be afraid to use the command line, but if you have to learn another bespoke command syntax and the location and structure of the related configuration files just to get something basic to work then the developer has frankly half arsed it. Developers need to provide GUI's so that their software can be used by as many people as possible. GUI's use a common language that everyone understands (is something on or off, what numeric values are allowed, what do the options mean).
Every 12 to 18 months I make an effort to switch to Linux. Right now I'm using Archlinux, and it has been a successful trip so far, except my audio is screwed, I can't use my capture card at all, I had issues with my dual displays at the start, and the is no easy way to configure my AMD graphics card for over clocking or well anything basic at all.
I'm not looking for a windows clone, I love that I can choose different desktop environments and theme many of them to death. I even like the fact there are so many distros. Choice is a big part of linux, but there is clearly a desire to get more people moving away from Windows and until that path is 95% seamless most people just won't. Right now I think Linux is 75% to 85% seamless depending on the use case and distro but adding more GUI front ends would, imho, push that well into the 90% zone.
GUI is not a dirty word, it is what makes using a new OS possible for more people.
EDIT: Good conversation all. This is genuinely not intended to be a troll post, I just feel it is good to share experiences especially on the frustations that arise from move between OSes.
Hey Linux devs - Build a GUI or gtfo
No you can GTFO if that is your attitude towards people volunteering their time to bring you an open OS and all the tools you need for free.
Yes, there is still a lot of room for improvement but attacking devs for not providing a GUI is not a good way to interact with the community. If you really want to see improvements then you need to help make those improvements with constructive discussions not hostile statements. We owe you nothing.
My title was intentionally flipant. But I thin the automatic assumption that command line is always fine for linux desktop needs to evolve. Not to say it hasn't, but there are definitely some basic gaps.
My title was intentionally flipant.
No, your title was rude and condescending. "Flippant" is a different thing.
Flippantly insulating the Linux devs is not the way to improve things. It has evolved and continues to do so. There are far more GUI tools for managing things then there has ever been. The only thing you have mentioned in your post is AMD GPU overclocking - not something I would consider a novice task nor something most people are going to want to do. So the priority to get a GUI to do this is quite low. Hell, it looks like there are no userland tools at all - only raw kernel interfaces. So it is really something we are lacking any tooling at all - let along GUI tools.
Better to advocate for these tools than insult devs for not having yet created them.
Not evolving is a feature. I started using linux in the 90s, and you know what? About 90% of the stuff I learned then is still completely relevant.
I hate GUI apps for most things, because you have to search to figure out how to do anything. With CLI apps you read the man page and you know how to use it.
The guy is really demanding something from volunteers devs? Not everyone is thinking "We need to make something easy to use so people can migrate from Windows to Linux", people just build stuff to use and share it so maybe someone could find it useful.
You can always create a GUI yourself, if you think it's so simple. It would be greatly appreciated and giving back to the community would be nice.
There's a difference between complaining and providing constructive feedback. This post falls in the former category. If you are a user of a free product and you don't like how it works, you are entitled to a full, no questions asked, refund. You're welcome to make suggestions but devs who work hard to provide something at no cost and on their own time owe nobody anything. I've seen this play out year after year in the open source community and it's led to a lot of very good projects shutting down when the developer gets fed up with the demands and behavior of the community of users.
I'm fine with config files, as long as they are where you expect them (~/.config/tool or ~/.tool). What I dislike is yet another funny config syntax because the dev couldn't settle on an established standard. Command line syntax is ok, if you give me sensible completions.
-
PowerUPP: GUI functional AMD GPU configurator for all voltage configuration, frequency tuning, SoC and memory frequency and voltage tuning
-
CoreCtrl: GUI usually-functional AMD GPU configurator. Fan curves, over and under clocking, power profiles, frequency and voltage tuning
You have to enable 'amd.ppfeaturemask=0xffffffff' in your boot options, but that is clearly stated in the user guide.
For sound, PAVUcontrol or the KDE volume setting GUI have been able to fix 80%-90% of my audio issues. I haven't used a command line for audio in a long time.
I agree that GUIs make it easier for mass-adoption but things not working out of the box and having to search for solution is just as much of a Windows problem as Linux. If someone has non-standard hardware, it is always a bigger problem to switch to another system. Windows still will randomly shut off my Yeti microphone input and switch to my monitor with no microphone as the system microphone on boot sometimes.
The difference is in windows for weird setups you have to run obscure possible virus runme.msi from 2015 where linux you have to put in an obscure command that you aren't sure what it does from a forum post from 2015. The only one that has mostly nailed that down is OSX.
PowerUPP hasn't appeared in my discovery so far. I'll check that one out. CoreCtrl is the one I'm planning to test so I can't comment yet. Hopefully they also offer more basic feature controls as well.
PAVUcontrol Doesn't have a an option to set any of the sample or bit rates. At least not in the version I have.
The difference is in windows for weird setups you have to run obscure possible virus runme.msi from 2015 where linux you have to put in an obscure command that you aren’t sure what it does from a forum post from 2015. The only one that has mostly nailed that down is OSX. I agree with you here. OSX is annoyingly good.
-
If you want a gui, pick pop os, linux mint, etc. If you really like the arch package managers, install something like the KDE or GNOME flavors of endeavour or garuda. Stop deliberately choosing a terminal heavy distro.
I disagree. This year I've run through Fedoro, mint and ubuntu, (Skipped PopOS but tried it last year). Other than the installer, I don't feel like I've needed to use the command line any more in Arch than I have in the other distros. It is the desktop environment that makes most of the difference anyway, and anything not present out of the box can be installed easily. Pamac is very good, and not hard to install, so there is an app store like feature if you want it.
"Be the change you want to see in the world."
But anything that requires configuration...should have a fully functional GUI.
Does this apply to ones with only 4 or 5 options to configure, where's the cutoff? Configuration files set the default flags and arguments, and a lot of command line tools that are configurable are small and simple enough that making a GUI just to configure it is not worth the hassle, the increased complexity and codebase size. The idea is that if the software is one or a few executable binar(ies) with enough flexibility, then contributors who's proficient with GUI toolkits can write the GUI wrapper (as a separate package), otherwise it's actually just a waste of time for the main dev(s). If that sounds reasonable, then you could write it yourself, pay someone to do it, or wait for someone to volunteer their time.
To address the problem itself. Maybe you should explain what problems you have with editing the configuration files yourself? I know the cons are: (1) having to know or be able to read toml, yaml, json, ini, or some kind of config syntax (but I think they are designed to be generally quite easy to understand), (2) it takes a bit longer to find and open if you're not used to it, (3) everything is a file so it's linear, making it harder to see where things are, so longer configs are a PITA. Good tools I think benefit from a GUI or TUI is TLP, archive managers, calculators, volume controllers, font manager or viewer (kinda obvious), why would you want a GUI to configure, e.g., bat, pacman, i3, dunst, all the xorg stuff like xresources, xmodmap??
In return, the pros are: (1) if there are no external docs, the docs can stay inside the default or sample configuration in the form of comments, whereas for GUI you can't possible include this information for every single toggle, (2) it's harder to version control because of increased abstraction, (3) it's not possible to translate every configuration field to a GUI if it's beyond just a toggle, you would still have to type things in.
I think having an extra GUI wrapper is a matter of complex balance, and made into reality by contributors and volunteers (or eventually, the devs themselves). To say everything should have a FULLY functional GUI if you have to configure it is a bit of an exaggeration and overreach.
I agree there are times a GUI is just not needed, like for one off configurations that are straight forward and never touched again. I'm not a professional developer but I do write some code, and often the bit that does the work is a few lines and the inferface is a many more lines, just error correction / prevention adds more lines of code.
I have spent the last few days tackling an audio issue that is looking more like it will need me to start building my own kernel. I always do my own investigations and it is that process, the many years of taking the "lets try linux" trip, to realise the basics are what make the OS accessible. Things are so much better now than even 2 years ago, but Linux (all distros) is still missing some basics. Rather than relying on 3rd parties to make GUI's the original developers should take the responsibility to provide a solid user interface.
I love the command line nature of Linux. It's waaay easier to automate tasks than with a GUI.
I recently found out I could scan images from the command line. A few minutes of hacking later and I had some scripts that greatly sped up the process of scanning books over using the GUI.
And I can see your point of view, but the thing is that "Linux devs" do this for fun. And writing GUIs isn't the most fun kind of programming for a lot of people.
If you need it done, you can pay someone to do it, or program it yourself. Otherwise the only other option is to wait upon the kindness of strangers.
As from the beginning, OSS devs will work on whatever they want to. Free work is not market-driven.
I agree that having better GUI is a generally good thing and that most of us would benefit from it. However it's false to state or believe that Linux in its totality is bereft of this. Distros like openSUSE, MX Linux and Garuda Linux have put in considerable effort into offering tools that enable one to config a lot of stuff through a GUI. However, it doesn't make a lot of sense to complain about the lack of GUIs if you (or whosoever for that matter) don't use one of these distros. Arch has minimalism as one of its design goals, so you either have to find the binaries/apps/packages (or whatsoever) that allow you to config through a GUI or you're out of luck.
I was worried Arch would have me at the command line more than Mint or Fedora, but it hasn't felt like that. I'm using KDE plasma so I've got all the same tools (or can install them if needed). The GUI elements missing in Arch are missing in Mint and Ubuntu, Fedora, PopOS, all of them. I happen to be struggling through an audio issue right now. Can you find an OS that lets you change the Audio sample and bit rates without messing with config files ? This is basic function, and the PulseAudio and Pipewire have been around long enough for a GUI to have been created, but no, it doesn't exist.
The GUI elements missing in Arch are missing in Mint and Ubuntu, Fedora, PopOS, all of them.
I would agree that they're roughly in the same ballpark as long as you had picked KDE Plasma on Arch. Though I would argue that Mint and PopOS have a noticeable lead, though I don't think that point deserves more discussion. However, none of them come close to something like openSUSE's YaST or MX' Tools. That's why I deliberately mentioned them. Perhaps worth a watch for those wondering how Windows compares to different Linux distros GUI-wise.
I happen to be struggling through an audio issue right now. Can you find an OS that lets you change the Audio sample and bit rates without messing with config files ? This is basic function, and the PulseAudio and Pipewire have been around long enough for a GUI to have been created, but no, it doesn’t exist.
I'm unfortunately unaware of any solution for that. Wish you good luck!
Not everything needs a GUI, but configs should definitely always be available as a consistent json file in a known location. I actually vastly prefer configuring settings in a text file where I can ctrl-f than most GUI's.
It is a flipant remark to suggest that devs should build a GUI or not bother develope at all.
As someone who just switched to Linux for the first time, please no. I hope they keep developing. I'm so sick of Microsoft's shit
