lucky13
Group: Members
Posts: 1478
Joined: Feb. 2007 |
 |
Posted: Dec. 04 2007,22:38 |
 |
| Quote | | I was referring to commands with options that would require a terminal. Most windows users don't get beyond clicking icons. (just getting a command window requires going into the start menu, clicking on "run," and then typing "cmd" just to generate a terminal window). |
Windows still accepts commands from terminal. It's my first option in my misc folder on my XP taskbar:
http://lucky13linux.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/menubar.png
(Can't embed png?)
The reason most Windows, Mac, Amiga, BeOS, etc., users use icons over console commands is because the interfaces are optimized for that. You can still open a Windows console and launch apps if you want. You can also configure links (shortcuts), scripts (bat), etc., to run from console or iconify them. And many of the graphical interfaces for handling tasks allow customizing of command parameters -- it's a lot easier for most users to tick off options than run man or a help flag to see what's available.
I think that last point is one of the things that "terminal snobs" lose sight of -- that a GUI doesn't necessarily hide everything behind the scenes or limit users from accessing the power of commands or applications. Interfaces for the most common applications generally don't offer many options because there aren't many. But interfaces for file managers and for processes often have things for users to click to handle things in different manners (such as front-ends like peazip that make 7zip easier for most users). The only issue is how much flexibility users want. For "power users," they like more options. Most users, though, want the simplest interface with the least details to worry about.
--------------
"It felt kind of like having a pitbull terrier on my rear end."
-- meo (copyright(c)2008, all rights reserved)
|
.
DSL Market ,
Great VPS hosting provided by Tektonic
