Linux

64114 readers

571 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 6 years ago

MODERATORS

nooter692@lemmy.ml

AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml

MarcellusDrum@lemmy.ml

cypherpunks@lemmy.ml

cyclohexane@lemmy.ml

d3Xt3r@lemmy.nz

What's your favorite well-designed CLI and why? (lemmy.world)

submitted 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) by netvor@lemmy.world to c/linux@lemmy.ml

68 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Regardless of what the app does and whether the thing that does is particularly useful, powerful or important for what you need to do (or even well implemented), what is a command-line interface that you had a particularly good experience both learning and working with?

In other words, I'm thinking about command line interface design patterns that tend to correlate with good user experience.

"Good user experience" being vague, what I mean is, including (but not limited to)

discoverability--learning what features are available),
usability--those features actually being useful,
and expressiveness--being able to do more with less words without losing clarity,

but if there's a CLI that has none of those but you still like it, I'd be happy to hear about it.

Edit: Trying to stress more that this post is not about the functionality behind the tool. Looks like most of first responders missed the nuance: whether app x is better than app y because it does x1 ad x2 differently or better does not matter; I'm purely interested in how the command line interface is designed (short/long flags, sub-commands, verbs, nouns, output behaviors)..

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] JayleneSlide@lemmy.world 2 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

But maybe I’m just using it so much I don’t recognize the sharp edges as much anymore.

Nah. I used to think that GUI git clients were The Way. But they all fall short, especially when the ***slightest ***thing goes sideways. Once you get your head around the paradigm, the git CLI is how you get real shit done and quickly. If anything, the GUI clients are all sharp edges and half-measures; the only reason I pull out a GUI client is to get a visual on all the branches in progress/already merged.

[–] Obin@feddit.org 1 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

I'm a huge Emacs user and while I love some of the convenience features (editing the rebase-history, smerge-vc-next-conflict, etc.), but I rarely use magit, one of Emacs' killer features, because I just still prefer the CLI over it. I usually know exactly what I want to do and menus, popups and hotkeys, no matter how good they are, just slow me down.

[–] littleomid@feddit.org 2 points 19 hours ago

How does pressing s to stage, cc to commit, pp to push slow you down in contrast to git add file, git commit -m etc?