The short answer is yes. But the interesting part - and I'm talking from personal experience - is that from the moment you realize just how easy and powerful using the console is, you learn how to use it.

And it does not mean you are going to turn into a full on expert or geek, tinkering around the console. You just learn a few simple commands that enable you to do something (or somethings) quicker, easier and cleaner than going through a GUI.

Can you? Yes. Should you? No.

Kinda disappointing.

The article is really trying to sell us, the reader, that using Linux without knowing how to use the command line is not only possible but totally feasible. Unfortunately, after each paragraph that expresses that sentiment we are treated to up to several paragraphs on how it's totally easier, faster, and more powerful to do things via thé command line, and hey did you know that more people like coding on Linux than windows? Did you know you can do more powerful things with bash, awk, and sed than you ever could in a file manager?!

FFS vim and nano are brought up and vim's "shortcuts" are praised... in an article on how you can totally use Linux through a gui and never need to open up the command line.

Who is this written for? outside of people who not only already use Linux but are convinced that using any other OS is both a moral failing and a form of self-harm?

Yes, my mom does.

Yes you can but you often see the terminal used when helping people online. This is because it works across desktop environments and mostly across distros, however it does give the impression that the terminal is needed.

Even basic things in distros are quite different, for example the frontend for settings, so tech support threads will show how to do it in the backend. Oh well, but then there's someone who suggests

sudo nano /etc/default/grub

If you're a noob, run this and get a "nano: command not found" error, you'll google it and learn to resolve it using apt. However, Manjaro's package manager is pacman but you don't know, so you install apt using a weird guide without knowing what it even is. The next update then wreaks havoc on your system.

My first install ended in a dependency hell because of this.

I didn't see anyone else mention this but, as someone who uses Linux Mint, if you are going to install software through the Software Manager, read the reviews for the app you want before downloading it. Linux Mint's Software Manager is full of apps that are so outdated that some of them aren't even compatible with the current version of Linux Mint. There are other issues as well, like how there are at least 20 different versions of Wine and most of them are very old versions. I'd understand if they want to keep legacy apps for the older, still supported, versions of Linux Mint but it can be confusing to use sometimes.

The real question is: "would you want to?"

I've been daily driving Linux Mint for 10 years now. The answer to this question is "for what most people consider everyday usage, you have to use the Linux terminal about as often as you have to edit the Windows registry." And in fact over the 10 years I've been a Linux user, GUI tools in Linux are increasingly available, and I've heard Windows normies talking about the registry more.

When I started out, Mint shipped with Synaptic Package Manager, and a lot of distros didn't include a GUI at all. Now GUI package managers are the rule rather than the exception and most have bespoke polished app store -like things. You of course can still use apt or dnf or pacman or whatever, but you decreasingly have to.

I never once touched the registry on my Win 98, Win XP, Win Vista or Win 7 machines. Win 8 required a couple registry keys to turn off that...curtain that you had to click away to get to the login screen? and a few other "tablet first" features Win 8 had, and now I hear "just go and add these registry keys to put the start menu on the left, turn off ads, re-enable right click and retract the rectal thermometer."

Linux is becoming more normie friendly while Windows is genuinely becoming less normie friendly.

Of course.

But why would you want to!?

The author argues that you don’t need to use the terminal but constantly argues that you should. The average computer user doesn’t even know which version of Windows they’re using. Many don’t even know if they’re using Windows or Mac. Until Linux gets over the obsession with the terminal we’re never going to have the year of Linux.

I've tried to run Ubuntu, mint, Debian, and couple other distros without the terminal to see if I can actually recommend it to non-geeks. And every time, I conclude I can't because the fucking "software center" (or whatever it's called) is always garbage, and it's easier to just use apt.

The only time I'll recommend Linux to a non-tech person is when the hardware is so old that it would just be junked without Linux.

This whole threat is a HUGE circle jerk and a collection of all the "I USE ARCH BTW" variations imaginable.

"WHY WOULDN'T ALL PEOPLE WANT THE KNOWLEDGE TO CRAFT COMMANDS TO MANIPULATE, FILTER AND SEARCH TEXT IN A WHOLE FILE SYSTEM WITH JUST ONE COMMAND? UNCULTURED PESANTS"

Come, not everyone is a computer nerd, nor everyone ones to optimize 30s in the workflow if it means memorizing a bunch of commands, their syntax and options.

I am a gui only user. AMA. I have to use command line occasionally but it's less than once a month, if that. Im on EndeavourOS desktop for over 2 years with Bauh managing updates. My home server runs Unraid with a web GUI interface maybe used CLI twice in 5 years? They told me Linux could be what I wanted it to be. I don't want to use command line, so I don't!

Yes. I've been using Ubuntu and now Kubuntu for about 12 years and I don't use the CLI. I don't play computer maintenance guy, so don't need any weird hacks. I just use my applications, which all have GUIs. I don't need the CLI despite people telling me I need to use it. They have never tried GUI only. So they don't know what they are talking about. The next lot, who typically have no idea about usability, tell me I'm missing out on something. But it's always something I've never needed. If I were to use the CLI, I would need to spend ages researching not just some command, but a whole lot of other concepts that I have no clue about, only to forget it all if I ever need that again. So not as fast as people claim. Luckily, Desktop Environment developers know this and put a lot of effort into making them user friendly. They understand usability. And that different users have different needs.

In my firs time with linux I install ubuntu (maybe 12.04, I dont't remember, it was gnome 2) in the only PC in my parents home, I delete windows, and we was using it 2 years without knowing what is a terminal and everything went fine, the problems appeard when I was discover the terminal hahahaha

Yes, I do it every day, on my Android phone, router, printer, television, speakers, smart hub, smartwatch, cable box, car, and everything else running Linux underhood.

Recently I tried a new, modern distro: Solus.

After installation, I survived about 10 minutes without a command line and the next thing I needed was their package manager's manual (because that fancy GUI software shop simply killed itself)

No big deal for me. I feel safe on these paths. But IMHO "Linux without command line" is still only a dream.

Based on my experience, I think you can. Many distros nowadays offer ways to do things without the use of the terminal. In Linux Mint, for example, you can rely solely on the Update Manager to update all installed applications and modules rather than using the terminal. You can also uninstall apps by right-clicking on them in the Menu and selecting the uninstall option. And finally, if you want to move files around, even to some locations that require root, you can do that using the File Explorer app (e.g. Nemo).

That being said, when I started on my Linux journey, I made it a point to actually learn some terminal commands, because I saw it as an important feature in Linux and a good skill to possess.

Yeah, obviously, or the title wouldn't even have happened.

And it's been that way for a while now. Back when windows 10 happened, I was able to install mint, get most of my preferred programs set up, and handle data transfer with zero CLI use. Which was awesome, because my dyslexic ass would have taken forever otherwise. It wasn't until I started putzing around for pop and giggles that I even opened a terminal.

My mom w as able to jump right in after installation of mint, and go through the gui to try things out, no issues.

For me, the terminal is something I’ll learn once I’m more familiar with which apps I like. Until then, it’s nice to have something like pamac to help me find the thing I need.

I'm sure you could but why? Terminal is so useful. Am I out of touch?

I can't personally, but I've installed/set up Linux systems for quite a lot of older people, and I think only one of them ever uses the terminal for anything. The rest just... use the computer.

On the whole, they're pretty much just using Libreoffice, Firefox and a few other bits these days. If something needs the terminal to fix, we're already past the point where they've phoned me to pop round and fix it.

These used to be Ubuntu systems, but I switched them all to Mint after having endless Snap permission problems with printers, USB sticks and other peripherals. Once up and running, it's pretty low maintenance.

I guess they don't need to use the terminal, because I'll go and do it if it's necessary - but we are looking at once every few years. Not a lot of tech support needed.

On my own machine, I probably use the terminal every day.

Yes you can but why would you not use the terminal. It's bloody handy.

I think tools like YaST help to save time, instead of editing the bootloader in config files, you can simply enter, search for "Boot Loader" and edit there, be following a tutorial or official documentation. I sometimes prefer to use YaST just so I don't do things wrong. it's like the old Control Panel in Windows.

Ιt depends on your competence. My mom's laptop is Debian with XFCE (2 GB RAM old Chromebook converted to run Debian) and of course, she doesn't use the terminal. But then again, she doesn't even know how to open a new tab on Chrome. She just uses 1 tab at the time (which is why it's enough with 2 GB of RAM). So she's never going to see a terminal in her life, and it's going to work just fine for her, since the only thing she does on a computer is load 1 tab on Chrome, and mostly use Facebook, or youtube, or news/recipe sites that I have put on her bookmark bar. When the computer needs to be updated, I do it for her once a month or so (using the terminal).

But if you're trying to do a lot more than that, then maybe, sometimes, you will need to fix or change things using the terminal.

Package management is probably the biggest thing a Linux user might need to use the terminal for. The graphical package managers used by default on most desktop environments are far too limited.

KDE's Discover for instance is capable of installing (graphical) desktop applications, uninstalling packages and performing updates. Sure, it supports native packages on the majority of distros through PackageKit, as well as Flatpaks and Snaps, but it can only perform very basic package manager operations. I imagine most users will at some point need to install a package that isn't a graphical desktop application, such as a driver or an optional dependency and they will need to use the terminal for it.

To my knowledge, this is also the state of most other graphical package managers that take the form of "software centers" like Discover. More powerful graphical package managers do exist, usually specific to a specific package manager such as Octopi for Pacman. Few distros ship with them, however. I believe one notable exception is OpenSUSE with YaST. There's also dnfdragora on Fedora, which is pretty basic, but might be good enough for most purposes.