Hacker News Reader

Comment by analog31 | Hacker News Reader

I use both CLI and GUI, but here's an area where I think the CLI just rocks: Instructions for installing and configuring software. Typical instructions for Linux:

    sudo apt-get install foo 
    sudo apt-get install bar
    cd ~/somewhere
    sudo nano something, change these lines

The same instructions for Windows involves screen after screen of text interspersed with annotated pictures of dialogs, which become obsolete when the OS is revised.

In fact, I've seen an increasing number of Windows installation tips being given in CLI terms:

    windows+R cmd
    enter this command

It would be interesting to see some sort of tool, online or within the system, where you enter a command string and it explains what the command does.

View on HN

I'd argue that has more to do with a unified package manager and installation process than GUI vs. CLI.

And I argue it has more to with the fact that *nix applications are traditionally configured via static configuration files as opposed to interactive process.

The real benefit is that they are configured with text files, not a monolithic inscrutable system "registry."

This is about how the user interacts with the configuration process, not where the configuration variables are stored.

Indeed. For the built in installation process that Microsoft wishes everyone would use in Windows 10, it could be this simple:

- Open the Store - Search for "Name of App" - Click Install

Bonus, this works for GUI software managers in Linux distributions which use them. Unifying the process simplifies most instructions greatly. I think the simple existence of Linux package managers, and the push to use them by the community, helps tremendously with this perceived ease. The installation complexity is largely solved by the package repository maintainers.

On the flip side, software which is not distributed with the OS can have very complex installation requirements even with command line instructions. Sometimes it's as easy as:

- ./configure - make install

But more often than not, you need to manually hunt down dependencies, and if the system uses automake / cmake and requires you to satisfy conditions for a build, those can get hairy and cryptic fast. I've gotten better at it over the years, but I wouldn't call this process any easier than a step-by-step installation wizard in a GUI.

> But more often than not

Simply not true. More often than not you'll get static binaries. And if the software is supported by a commercial team, any dependencies on your supported platform are already tested and working.

I'd argue it's because it's a lot simpler to to explain than "start synaptic, got to the search box and type x, click the install button, etc".

On the other hand, on mobile platform it is perfectly accepted to say "install foo via app/play/whatever store", which is essentially the same process, isn't it?

Tip: in recent Ubuntu (not sure about upstream Debian but I'd bet it's the same) this is now the recommended way:

    sudo apt install foo

I use `apt` in Debian, not sure if that's what they recommend, but the interface is better.

`apt search`/`apt-cache search`

`apt install` /`apt-get install`

Though, I prefer pacman/pacaur interface, even if it is less intuitive at first, but I won't use Arch on servers.

"apt" is meant to be the user facing version. No concerns about backwards compatibility or anything. It's purely user experience focused. If they want to change to "apt get" for installing because they feel its good UX, they will (they probably wont, because that sounds awfully confusing)

"apt-get" is meant to be used in scripts/automation. "apt-get install foo" will always behave the same way with the same params.

For the longest time I used a script that basically unified my most common apt-get/apt-cache/dpkg commands into a single frontend, so it's about time.

Some site like this? http://explainshell.com/explain?cmd=rm+-rf+--no-preserve-roo...

> The same instructions for Windows involves screen after screen of text interspersed with annotated pictures of dialogs, which become obsolete when the OS is revised.

Is it an MSI? If not it should be...

To install:

  C:\> MSIEXEC /I /QB software-name.MSI

To remove:

  C:\> MSIEXEC /X /QB software-name.MSI

(/QB tells msiexec to install the app with the default options, and throw up no gui dialogs)

Admittedly we're missing a good online universal repository system on Windows, but hopefully one day that'll change.

Chocolatey???

That's exactly what I did [1], with a word of warning about "Command-Line-Fu". Experience has shown that this is by far the preferred way my customers do IIS installation.

1: https://hglabhq.com/documentation/installation/installing-hg...

On the other hand, someone with little to no experience with the command line might struggle to figure out how to start the terminal, why nothing happens when they try to type their password, how the path system works, and so on.

CLI is great for advanced users, but I think GUI is probably best for the vast majority of computer users.

I use chocolatey on my Windows system at work and at home.

> The same instructions for Windows involves screen after screen of text interspersed with annotated pictures of dialogs, which become obsolete when the OS is revised.

In Windows 10: Windows Key + type name of app + click Install button. No dialogs.

I pasted that into cmd.exe and it does not work. Can you create a bat script, please?

Interesting to see that style of Windows installation making a return. I remember it being how almost everything was installed for 3.1 and 95.

Do you know about https://chocolatey.org/ ?

I am trying to normalize some of this between different operating system shells: https://github.com/prettydiff/biddle

tl-dr might be what you're looking for

https://github.com/tldr-pages/tldr

Reply on news.ycombinator.com