Not at all.They are 2 ways do the same thing. The GUI can tell you what options are available. The CLI needs you to memorise them, or go somewhere else to look them up.
A lot of GUIs have less options available than their CLI equivalents. Moreover GUIs change more often, requiring you to relearn the actions to get the expected result
Shells can remember the commands you used, commands are also way easier to write down on paper than a list of actions to do on a GUI
And using man or --help is not going somewhere to know the options, you stay in the shell
If you want to know all the features of a tool, reading the manual is also easier than browsing all the GUI
The CLI lets the user automate tasks, giving them more control over their workflow
GUIs can have just as many options. Sure there are programs with poor UX. Choose a good one.
There are also many GUIs with no CLI alternative, or only a poor UX alternative.
As the GUIs guide the user, small changes are understood right away.GUIs remember last settings all the time. Great for reuse.
If you have to write a command down, for GUIs it need not be perfect. For CLI one letter wrong and it fails.
Using man commands is yet another command to learn and does not work with all CLI commands.
It is possible to automate GUI commands.
And even if there was some benefit to a CLI, the entire UX is so poor you can understand why most people prefer GUIs. It’s the dominant way for good reason. And why most CLI users use a web browser and GUI email client.
There’s no CLI that k wish I had a GUI for, but there’s many GUIs for which I wish there was a CLI version.
The cli controls the computer while the GUI controls the user
Why would i use something so restrictive as cli tools when i can change the data directly with assembly?
I issue electricity directly to the pins.
So crude, when you could use a butterfly.
Not at all.They are 2 ways do the same thing. The GUI can tell you what options are available. The CLI needs you to memorise them, or go somewhere else to look them up.
A lot of GUIs have less options available than their CLI equivalents. Moreover GUIs change more often, requiring you to relearn the actions to get the expected result Shells can remember the commands you used, commands are also way easier to write down on paper than a list of actions to do on a GUI And using man or --help is not going somewhere to know the options, you stay in the shell If you want to know all the features of a tool, reading the manual is also easier than browsing all the GUI
The CLI lets the user automate tasks, giving them more control over their workflow
GUIs can have just as many options. Sure there are programs with poor UX. Choose a good one. There are also many GUIs with no CLI alternative, or only a poor UX alternative. As the GUIs guide the user, small changes are understood right away. GUIs remember last settings all the time. Great for reuse. If you have to write a command down, for GUIs it need not be perfect. For CLI one letter wrong and it fails. Using man commands is yet another command to learn and does not work with all CLI commands. It is possible to automate GUI commands.
And even if there was some benefit to a CLI, the entire UX is so poor you can understand why most people prefer GUIs. It’s the dominant way for good reason. And why most CLI users use a web browser and GUI email client.