this post was submitted on 19 May 2024
159 points (90.8% liked)
Linux
48216 readers
710 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Well if i double-click a file I've made executable, it will ask if I'd like to run it, and most software will have a github or downloads page that will give you direct downloads to the software.
In other words, I can successfully install things like a windows user, I just have to go the extra step to open the file's properties and make it executable with the GUI first.
Apt is faster, and it's also faster to do a direct download, make it executable, then execute it in the terminal, too. But I CAN do it.
Config files can be edited in the GUI text editor, it's just slower.
To test my claim and prove your third point, this link is the repository for a samba GUI, found at https://www.samba.org/samba/GUI/. Specifically, it's SMB4K, the first one.
Convenient? No. Would it update automatically? No. Do I want to do it this way, or recommend it? Still no. But it does function.
Some programs can be installed this way, but it's extremely far from universal.
Not without opening them as root, which in every distro I know of, requires the terminal.
The install directions for that program involve the terminal.
In mint I can right click in a folder and reopen the folder with elevated privileges. That's my primary, I assumed it was standard but if it's not common I guess it's a cinnamon thing. If so, maybe cinnamon is the desktop of choice for avoiding the terminal.
I didn't do my full diligence to the samba GUI thing, apparently. That's a good catch.
To salvage my argument, yumex has a GUI and extends yum, so while the instructions expect the terminal, I think it'll be optional.
I still recommend it to nobody, but someone who set out to avoid the terminal doesn't have to fail.
yumex, pip-gui, and aptitude give yum, pip, and apt GUI's, respectively, so most anything that expected the terminal should be doable without it. All it costs is a bunch of effort troubleshooting GUI things or finding out one doesn't display error messages and logs them weirdly or whatever.
Pretty sure you can configure "open as root" in some file managers. Also you can configure a gksudo (or similar) setup.
Really though, that makes me think. The file manager should detect you're opening something you don't have write access to and ask if you want to authenticate as root to open it.
There are apps that can do it, but require the terminal to install.
Also in every distro I've tried, config files will open read-only, not with the authentication pop-up.
Just double clicking on /etc/fstab opens it in the editor, I can write whatever I want and when I want to save it asks for authentication.
Anyways, what exactly do you think is the average user that can and should play around in system config files and can't use the terminal at the same time?