“The poster was just volunteering a little knowledge for its own sake to a user that is presumably using Synaptic without issue. “
Incorrect. The poster was volunteering a little knowledge to a user that had to use the command line interpreter twice today to install a printer driver.
I shouldn’t have to know any of that stuff. If this was an isolated occurrence I wouldn’t have mentioned it. I cannot remember the last time I had to use the command line for anything in XP or Win2000. I know I have never needed it for any of my Macs.
For the average computer user, this means Linux fails to be a viable desktop operating system for them. The point of the article was that it’s a myth that Linux isn’t easy to use. The article is wrong. Every Linux box I have built has required me to run the command line interpreter from time to time, starting with Red Hat several years ago and including Fedora Core and now Ubuntu. The shells are getting better, but they aren’t good enough.
As always, I appreciate the help that I shouldn’t need.
And yet they easily could be, because anyone who has ever installed software or drivers on OS/X knows that you never have to look at a command line for any reason. Apple puts a premium on abstracting away from the user any kind of underlying OS complexity. Microsoft tries to do that, but most applications have too many configuration options (mostly as a cheap attempt at allowing the user to limit the size of the installed software) and some vendors fall short with installation design. Some Linux distributions like Ubuntu also try, but Linux drivers and application software are still in the hands of people who like poking around under the hood, and don't see the need to make installations as easy as possible. After all, they understand it, so what's wrong with all those noobs out there who don't? ;)