Whats a gui)

1 members found this post helpful.

Frequently the options available in the GUI are limited. And when the desired option is available sometimes the changes don't "take". So most of the time I go straight to the CLI to do administer my systems.

My servers run without GUI, so the question is moot ....

What problem are you having attempting to vote?

--jeremy

As others have mentioned, a GUI for everyday stuff, CLI for troubleshooting. And with more and more applications becoming web-based and not dependent on proprietary Microsoft protocols and formats, there is a growing opportunity for Linux desktop systems to become more adopted by mainstream users. But that means a well thought-out GUI, preferably one not drastically different from distro to distro.

I use the CLI. But my boxes do not run a desktop. There could have been an option for that

It all depends on what actions you want to do, doesn't it.

Given than I'm an ADD type individual, I guess whether it's dekstop or server I'd prefer GUI. A lot of what goes on at the command line requires you to remember what you were just doing before or to be able to multitask on different things at once and people like me tend to lose focus if we aren't more visually involved in the process. Plus, some of us might be new to Linux server and were used to managing things on Windows server. So GUI is more comfortable.

While I don't dispute the efficiency of command line for those who remember every Linux command ever made or for those who eat, sleep, and breathe command line, to be able to better visualize what's going on while you're doing it is much easier.

1 members found this post helpful.

CLI for administering, GUI for general use.

GUI. Some time ago I would have responded "Command Line" but I've gotten lazy or more adjusted now to the GUI.

I generally administer all my boxes remotely. I never use gui tools unless it is when I am working on my laptop.

1 members found this post helpful.

I prefer the CLI...

MUCH easier to document settings, how to set, where they are set, and what they do.

1 members found this post helpful.

Very often, you are administering many boxes, and these may well be "headless" machines which are not running XWindows/XOrg server, nor GUI-based management tools, simply because there's no need to do so. (These machines have a specific job to do, and they are equipped with the exact software needed to do that job, and that's all they run all day.)

Therefore, command-lines ... and automated tools ... are quite the norm.

I know of one site that actually uses a very interesting approach: on their various servers, the key system directories are git repositories! They literally manage updates by instructing the remotes to git pull from a master, then to git checkout a particular branch! In this way, hundreds of machines can be told to update themselves ... correctly ... to a specified collection of master files maintained in the (read only, to them) remote repository. Very clever. Both the deployment of new updates, and reverting from incorrect ones, is a hands-free process which git performs with perfect accuracy and great efficiency.

1 members found this post helpful.

Command Line. Because... Linux...

Seriously. Impressing the opposite sex with command line skills is cool. And amazingly effective...
If you find you're getting serious, nothing like some regex-fu to seal the deal...

I generally prefer clis because, like others are saying:

1. With clis it is easier to automate repetitive tasks via scripting.
2. Remote administration via ssh is a bit less cumbersome when using clis. I have used guis remotely but occasionally have had problems with network bandwidth and the graphics configurations of the remote machines.

Also, I have this unsubstantiated belief that clis are developed first, and hence include all the options, whereas guis are developed afterwards, possibly by different people, and occasionally may do the wrong thing or have some features hidden or missing.

Of course, I don't think all clis are great. Some clis, usually complex ones, are insufficiently documented for my general level of dumbness; and I have a hard time creating useful mental models of their operation (e.g. Alsa). In many of those cases, the available guis do provide an invaluable service when a) they restrict the available combinations of options to sane ones, and b) they provide easier-to-grasp views of the underlying systems.

................. the command line, of course. (=: Nah, just kidding. The real answer is situational.

If you need scripting capability, the command line is usually worth the effort to get the maximum flexibility and parametrization.

If it is truly a one-time exercise of a one or two functions and there are reliable GUIs, then the GUI is probably the best tool, even for experienced folks. Sometimes a guided or visual approach keeps us out of trouble (Who, me?).

Grey area? Pick yer poison.