I don't agree with the analogy. Telephones derive their power from the use of language just like command-line interfaces. Point and click interfaces will never surpass the power of language because it is language that makes us human.
A command line interface isn't a great medium for singing, but graphical interfaces enabled sophisticated music production software, desktop publishing using beautiful fonts and images (examples he used). It enables expressiveness beyond what can be captured in mere text. But it can do plain text just fine too.
But the main point he made was not that these things can't be done using a command line, it's that a graphical interface democratises access by removing the need to learn special incantations to interact creatively with content.
IMO unless you’re actually drawing or looking at an image GUIs really kind of suck but are very sexy and help people sell a lot of software.
GUI do democratise access to capabilities, but unless you work only with pixels GUIs are inferior in every single way.
That's a good one, I've been using Unix/Linux systems daily since the early 90s and test people on their Bash skills in job interviews.
Except in the way that matters: symbolic representation and manipulation (and discoverability).
>Expressiveness is not limited to a medium, and if you ever used a command line interface you would understand the concept it pipes and arguments is way more expressive than a round of 100 clicks to do the same thing thru a GUI.
Actually, a GUI can trivially include a pipe system (tons of VFX and Color gradings apps for example offer one, MAX/MSP and others).
A GUI can also trivially include a text console, and have all the capabilities of the command line.
The command line, on the other hand, can't have all the capabilities of the GUI. Even auto-completion is implemented crudely with curses interfaces (which, in any case, are GUIs too).
(Oh, and I've been using the command line since the pre-Solaris days of Sun OS).
You are essentially arguing the same point Jobs is emphasising. If Jobs have to do it your way, basically you are leaving behind 95% of normal people who are not tech savvy like writers, artists, accountants etc who could benefit from a computer without knowing the complicated inner workings of a computer. Exactly the same way you are benefiting from `ncurses` and not writing all the obsure logic of text rendering from scratch everytime just so you can work in command line ... You misinterpreted this whole discussion as an argument between GUI vs terminals which is not the point at all.
Most people need ease of use more than they need raw power. Both of them have their place.
A command-line interface is no more a "magic incantation" than pointing and clicking in the right places is. In fact, I would argue that language is less magic than pointing and clicking because the rules of language are available for anyone to learn, while the rules of pointing and clicking are designed and only understood by the application developer.
Damn me for having a different opinion, though.
But that's a big caveat.
I've been volunteering at Girls Who Code. My club is doing a project that involves SSH'ing into a Raspberry Pi, and I've spent a significant amount of time getting the kids used to just moving through folders within the command line. Using cd and ls to navigate a file system is actually really tricky to wrap your head around if you're not used to it!
I guess your command line uses natural language processing and is accessible to anyone who never read a man page or heard of a shell?
The command line interface is no less opaque than "the rules of pointing and clicking".
To your point about clicking vs knowing commands, a GUI is more discoverable for someone, because they can try things and see what happens. Trying to guess commands is much harder, because there are no clues to guide you.
Mere text[0][1].
CLI vs GUI in the context of this thread is a false dichotomy, because we’re imagining (I.e, inventing) scenarios where GUIs are better. “Look at this virtual rack of equipment in Reason and see how democratic that is.”[2]
Sure, or a mess that begs to be put into a table in a text processor. Where it’s more truly democratic because a screen reader can be employed if necessary. Jobs was selling sparkles, successfully, not “computing”.
“Do you want to sell sugar water for the rest of your life, or do you want to come with me and change the world?”, indeed. Why pick only one?
Text isn’t dead or outmoded.
[0] https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D6ZzTeUlk6mwqyZ0GIrhYIFeRkK... - my own, developed in console with vi, tmux, CSound, ffmpeg, custom software for compositing, Makefiles
[1] https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/1319/showcase-of-bea...