-
Website
http://www.usabilityblog.com -
Original page
http://www.usabilityblog.com/index.php/2009/01/09/should-users-be-shielded-from-the-linux-command-line/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
That being said, restricting command-line access would put off a good-sized fraction of the potential user community.
Perhaps some kind of warning with a "don't show me this again" when launching the terminal indicating that you can mess up your machine beyond the ability of the support staff to fix it if you make a mistake. Sort of a "no user serviceable parts inside" sticker on it...
Linux install myself by mucking around at the command line. But I
think it runs counter to the spirit of exploring and learning. Thanks
for the comments.
My first thought is that the user will have to get into the command line sooner or later, for some reason. Besides that, like you said, it is *the* way to get more out of linux.
Then I realize that this is a situation like OEM Windows -- an OS environment tailored to the hardware, including the necessary drivers and all. (OEM Mac being an extreme version of this :) )
Given this, I believe there are few things that the user can do (without sudo, that is) that can't be done outside the command line. And the few things that the user would want to do with sudo (editing xorg.conf or apt's sources.list, for example) either shouldn't need to be done (xorg,conf should be tailored to the system), or can be done through a gui (synaptic package manager allows adding/deleting repositories). At any rate, Mac is Unix-based, and their users have gotten along extremely fine without command line access :) (I've rarely heard of a Mac user opening Darwin...)
Anyway, the average consumer buys a computer so they can use it, not so they can "explore linux". Maybe they buy the linux pc because it's cheaper, maybe they buy it because a geek relative rants and raves about their linux install, but the reason they buy it is so they can use it for everyday tasks. About the only reason I can think of that they would need CLI access would be to troubleshoot system problems -- and that's what tech support is for :) .
Regarding your comment about "[breaking] a Linux install myself by mucking around at the command line", what kind of recovery options does the netbook have? If the consumer "breaks their install", how easy is it for them to get themselves back up and running, even with tech support? If the answer is none, I would think it unsafe for both consumer and company to allow the user CLI access. If the answer is a recovery disc -- well, I've learned a lot recently that optical media is rather less than reliable. If the answer is a recovery partition, I think that's best, but it's really only a "good choice" if the user backs up their data. And I guarantee you the average consumer isn't going to fire up partimage or rdiff-backup every month or so.
Linux without a command line is something to experiment with, but it's just laziness on the part of HP to cut it out entirely. Pretty obvious that they're just trying to cut down on support calls. Based on my experience with an HP PC I bought last fall, this is par for the course: setup the computer nonsensically and provide crappy support. (How naive of me to think that pre-built consumer-grade computers had progressed since 1998.)
These users generally have no need for the command line. (But sometimes they do.) Just like on Windows and Mac, it should be there and accessible for when users need it, but not either in your face or required for 99% of the regular user activities.
Now if I can just get actual installers for software on my netbook. There's stuff I'd like to add, but the need to use command line methods has actively prevented me from pursuing such. (Compare to the dozens of apps I have installed on my iPhone.)
In short, user access to terminal isn't a bad thing, but the benefits of taking it away or making access difficult, as a roadblock to developers, could lead to a better end user experience on the platform.