Rivalarrival

No worries!

Do you also think that anyone that wants a car should be a mechanic?

I reject the premise.

I think that anyone who wants to be a driver should be able to understand that the brake pedal squeezes the pads against the rotor.

I don't think that everyone who can identify a brake rotor is a mechanic.

Anyone that wants a drug should be a pharmacist?

I think that anyone who wants any sort of medicine should have enough medical, mathematical, and statistical knowledge to understand that vaccines don't cause autism. I don't think that everyone with such knowledge is a pharmacist, mathematician, or statistician.

The idea that the command line is "unfriendly" and that decelopers should hide it away is, in my opinion, the computer equivalent of the antivax movement.

Most people do not intrinsically desire that.

The only things that people "intrinsically" want are food and fornication. Everything else, they have been taught and trained. The training they have received from Microsoft domination has been "don't learn how to use a computer".

That training is something to despise and reject, not incorporate into Linux.

Most people don't care about automation. They just don't.

Microsoft would certainly have us believe that. Decades of operant conditioning by Microsoft and Apple have given us that attitude.

Most people certainly do want automation; they don't know how to automate. There was a meme floating around recently about a temp who replaced hours and hours of tedious, daily transcription between two applications with ctrl-c, ctrl-v.

We have all seen plenty of examples like this, with users doing excessive manual labor out of simple ignorance of absurdly simple automation.

And your still refusing the point.

The point arises from the very attitude I am challenging, so yes, I am refusing the point. We should not be encouraging or supporting the behaviors you describe, but should instead be promoting the tools that allow the average user to identify menial tasks and relegate them to the machine.

In my opinion, Linux and its various distro's main goal ought to be to undermine for-profit OS. Not to turn everyone into computer techs.

Turning everyone into "computer techs" is how we undermine for-profit OS. The command line is a spoon. In the hand of a toddler, it goes flying across the room, along with the mashed potatoes it held. Microsoft's answer to that flying spoon is to teach the kid that they can never touch the spoon; they must let mommy do it for them (and here is "mommy's" bill for that "service").

Microsoft teaches that it is a "pipe dream" for the average person to ever have sufficient mastery over the spoon to be able to feed themselves. They taught us that spoons are scary and dangerous.

Linux keeps putting that spoon on her tray, and encouraging her to use it.

My "goal" has less to do with bringing Linux to the masses and more with bringing the masses to Linux. The "pipe dream" argument you presented should not be ported in. The "normie" should be taught from a very young age that the command line isn't "unfriendly", but wildly powerful, and well within their capacity to wield.

if my whole family is to use a Linux environement thet moment they will see a consol they will run away.

Then they will never script anything. They will never automate a task themselves. They will only ever operate a computer manually, interactively, rather than programmatically.

Windows pushed users to remain toddlers their entire lives. They charge us for the privilege, so they want to keep spoon feeding us for our entire lives. When we see a spoon anywhere but in their hands, they want us to throw it across the room rather than pick it up and try to use it.

Microsoft wants your family to run away screaming, rather than asking what that console is and what it can do.

The objective of Linux is to put the spoon on the tray of your toddler's high chair. Linux encourages her to pick it up, poke it at her food, and keep encouraging her to learn, to develop and build on her skills, until she is asking for the fork, the knife.

Dude, nobody wants to take away the CLI on Linux

...

If we want Linux to succeed, there needs to be at least one distro that confidently ships without a terminal.

Yep. Every Linux problem has the exact same solution: ctrl-c, ctrl-v.

The user is never be expected to type a command into a terminal.

Nope! Absolutely not. This is where Windows 95 fucked us all over. Prior to 95, windows was an application executed from a DOS prompt. Users may not have known many commands, but they learned that commands could be given.

Windows 95 tried to convince us that a GUI developer knew better than the user everything the user wanted to be able to do with that computer. It did make simple use easier, but the way it did it was by hiding the average user away from any simple ability to automate. It took away virtually all command line utilities that could be scripted to run themselves, and replaced them with GUI-driven applications that required the human's time and attention, repeatedly and monotonously sorting through graphical menus and prompts to achieve a task that the computer could easily be "trained" to do itself. It did it by dumbing down the user, reducing their expectations to the few idea the GUI allowed them to express.

GUIs are Fisher-Price toys. They are the bright and shiny, but functionally crippled. There is no need for a distro that deliberately impairs the user in the way that you describe.

Certainly. I agree completely.

The correspondent's dinner isn't the proper venue for that.

The correspondent's dinner is, in part, a comedy roast of the president and his administration. The guests are overtly praising and honoring the roasted. They are laughing with the guest of honor, not at him.

We should absolutely ridicule Trump, Musk, and the rest, mercilessly. But none of them deserve the honor of a roast.

How does this form? Do the arms branch out and then rejoin? Was it some kind of "bubble" that developed various holes?

its chief executive Mark Sanders

Really? He's an insurance executive in 2025, and his name is "Mark"?

mark

noun

uk /mɑːk/ us /mɑːrk/

...

an intended result or an object aimed at