Oh no, you're thinking, yet another cookie pop-up. Well, sorry, it's the law. We measure how many people read us, and ensure you see relevant ads, by storing cookies on your device. If you're cool with that, hit “Accept all Cookies”. For more info and to customise your settings, hit “Customise Settings”.

Review and manage your consent

Here's an overview of our use of cookies, similar technologies and how to manage them. You can also change your choices at any time, by hitting the “Your Consent Options” link on the site's footer.

Manage Cookie Preferences
  • These cookies are strictly necessary so that you can navigate the site as normal and use all features. Without these cookies we cannot provide you with the service that you expect.

  • These cookies are used to make advertising messages more relevant to you. They perform functions like preventing the same ad from continuously reappearing, ensuring that ads are properly displayed for advertisers, and in some cases selecting advertisements that are based on your interests.

  • These cookies collect information in aggregate form to help us understand how our websites are being used. They allow us to count visits and traffic sources so that we can measure and improve the performance of our sites. If people say no to these cookies, we do not know how many people have visited and we cannot monitor performance.

See also our Cookie policy and Privacy policy.

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

Only losers back just one side in the GUIs v CLIs holy war


Sysadmin blog 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 reading screenfuls of text.

It's an argument that has cropped up in fora all over the web for decades.

Both sides talk about the pros and cons fairly openly, even coming to many of the same conclusions. Unfortunately in a lot of cases, debaters seem to spend more time talking past each other instead of engaging in meaningful debate.

Graphical user interface (GUI) supporters say the visual nature of the interface makes it easy to use, and helps users find features and work out which bits of an application depend on other parts: select an option over here and an option over there changes as well

As long as users understand the fundamentals of "how the computer works", then a GUI allows them to find whatever it is they need quickly and efficiently. They can rely on visual cues so they don't have to pay rapt attention to the screen at all times.

For my part, I have found GUIs useful. If an application has a graphical interface that follows any of the common design conventions, I am confident I can make it work; even if I've never seen it before in my life. I can make the transition from Windows NT directly to Windows Server 2012 over to Mac OS X and through to Gnome, Unity and even Webmin without having to relearn everything from scratch.

The downside to GUIs is that they rely on this steady consistency. Any change to a user interface has to be handled delicately, and it almost never is. This is part of the reason why I don't get along well with Microsoft's Metro interface for Windows 8./p>

Where's the power?

The other side of the debate is the "real men use the command line" camp. They lead in with the hard-to-counter fact that command-line interfaces (CLI) are more powerful and flexible than GUIs. What you can do with Bash, Grep and regular expressions is light years ahead of anything offered via searches in a point-and-click interface, even today. As an added bonus, CLI-optimised systems tend to store configurations and settings in flat human-readable files. Flat config files are easier to backup, migrate, and create scripts to manipulate.

If you really know what you're doing, then a powerful CLI employing Bash can allow you to truly unlock the potential of your computer in a way that a GUI never will. A GUI is always limited to the preconceptions of its designers; the metaphors they use, the combinations of commands and scriptlets they felt should, would and could work together.

Most CLIs allow you to chain together commands (sadly Goosh still doesn't). Chaining is powerful; it allows a systems administrator to marry commands, scripts and entire applications in ways never intended by their designers. CLIs allow a systems administrator to push the boundaries of what is possible with the software available. There are whole categories of work that are child's play in a CLI that would be tedious (if not impossible) in a GUI.

The flip side of the coin is that CLIs require a great deal more rote learning and memorisation to use. You need to read a lot of documentation and manuals before it becomes more powerful than a GUI, and there are still plenty of things a GUI takes care of for you that would be monotonous in a CLI.

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.

With the basic arguments of both sides laid out, the root of my confusion with this debate is how very polarising it is. Forum denizens the internet over seem to view CLI versus GUI as a binary choice; you either use one or you use the other. I simply cannot grasp this; why limit yourself either way?

Avoiding CLIs entirely borders on career suicide. By the same token, if a GUI makes a certain administration task easier, why not make use of that tool? There is more than enough room for both forms of computer interaction within the practice of systems administration. ®

Similar topics

Narrower topics


Other stories you might like

  • Google to sell replacement Pixel phone parts via iFixit
    Batteries, displays, cameras and more, apparently

    In a nod to right-to-repair efforts, Google is partnering with iFixit to offer spare parts for its Pixel smartphones dating all the way back to 2017.

    Genuine Pixel parts will be in stock for iFixit customers in the US, UK, Canada, Australia, and EU countries that sell Pixels "later this year." Parts will be available for devices as old as the Pixel 2 through 2021's Pixel 6 Pro, "as well as future Pixel models," Google said today. 

    Available parts include "everything you need for the most common Google Pixel Repairs – batteries, displays, cameras and more," iFixit said. The repair howto site will be selling parts individually, and as part of its Fix Kits that include necessary pieces and tools needed to perform specific repair processes. 

    Continue reading
  • Apple iOS privacy clampdown 'did little' to reduce tracking
    Double-standard rules have strengthened iGiant's gatekeeper power

    Apple's ramp up in iOS privacy measures has affected small data brokers, yet apps can still collect group-oriented data and identify users via device fingerprinting, according to a study out of Oxford.

    What's more, the researchers claim, Apple itself engages in and allows some forms of tracking, which serve to strengthen its control over the iOS market.

    In a paper titled, "Goodbye Tracking? Impact of iOS App Tracking Transparency and Privacy Labels," due to be published in June for the ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency 2022, Oxford academics Konrad Kollnig, Max Van Kleek, Reuben Binns, and Nigel Shadbolt, with independent US-based researcher Anastasia Shuba, describe what they found after analyzing 1,759 iOS apps from the UK App Store, both before and after the introduction of iOS 14.

    Continue reading
  • Microsoft dogs Strontium domains to stop attacks on Ukraine
    Software giant sinkholes systems used by Russian gang

    Microsoft this week seized seven internet domains run by Russia-linked threat group Strontium, which was using the infrastructure to target Ukrainian institutions as well as think tanks in the US and EU, apparently to support Russian's invasion of its neighbor.

    The seizure is also part of a long-running legal and technical hunt by Microsoft to disrupt the work of Strontium – aka APT28 and FancyBear, among other names – via an expedited court process that enables the company to quickly get judicial approval for such actions, according to Tom Burt, corporate vice president of customer security and trust at Microsoft.

    Before the latest seizures, Microsoft had used this process 15 times to take over more than 100 domains controlled by Strontium, which is thought to be run by the GRU, Russia's foreign military intelligence agency. Microsoft obtained a court order for the most recent operation on April 6 and acted immediately.

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022