Re: should CLI have a nice UI today?
On 2023-03-25 06:35, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: After a detour around whiptail I ended up full-circle with Tcl/Tk. It is still the nicest, smallest self-contained graphical toolkit enabling one to wrap some GUI around CLI programs. The whole pack is one or two orders of magnitude smaller than some web browser monstrosity and much easier to extend, handle and embed. +1 mick
Re: should CLI have a nice UI today?
>> The issue is not what you CAN express with different media: any >> program can be expressed as a flowchart. > > Is that true? Genuine question - I don't know the answer. But are the > two mathematically equal/equivalent? Yes, it's called "Turing equivalence" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_completeness#Formal_definitions Stefan
Re: should CLI have a nice UI today?
debian-u...@howorth.org.uk wrote: > Nicolas George wrote: > > The issue is not what you CAN express with different media: any > > program can be expressed as a flowchart. > > Is that true? Genuine question - I don't know the answer. But are the > two mathematically equal/equivalent? I wonder how, for example, > self-modifying code or tail recursion are modelled in flowcharts? Since flowcharts are interpreted by humans and not computers, you could always define a new construct. That said: https://www.freecodecamp.org/news/how-recursion-works-explained-with-flowcharts-and-a-video-de61f40cb7f9/ Self-modifying code is just an implementation where a step breaks out into "run the code contained in this variable". -dsr-
Re: should CLI have a nice UI today?
Nicolas George wrote: > The issue is not what you CAN express with different media: any > program can be expressed as a flowchart. Is that true? Genuine question - I don't know the answer. But are the two mathematically equal/equivalent? I wonder how, for example, self-modifying code or tail recursion are modelled in flowcharts?
Re: should CLI have a nice UI today?
Nicolas George wrote: > to...@tuxteam.de (12023-03-29): > > Perhaps roughly 3k to 4k years of storing, transmitting and > > retrieving information in written form have a part in it. > > > > It may be a social convention, but by now it runs so deep that I'm > > convinced you'll find epigenetic traces of it in us humans. > > Or perhaps those 3-4K years of storing information have selected a > format that is close to the best possible with the limitations of our > brains, our eyes and our hands. > > Keyboards are roughly 150 years old: it is possible we find some > improvement on the way they are designed that makes entering data more > efficient. > > On the other hand, computers have not changed the fact that data > enters us mostly as images and sound, so I predict it is unlikely we > find means significantly more efficient than reading. Hmm, I suppose Neuralink et al might disagree with you. Only partly in jest :)
Re: should CLI have a nice UI today?
On 3/24/23 04:32, cor...@free.fr wrote: Hello, Should CLI (command line interface) have a nice UI library? today web dev has so many libraries that make web pages with rich/colorful interactive views. But CLI is still in dull mode. That should be improved in these days. for example, run "df -h" we got the statistics with plain text. But web statistics for cloud storage (GCP,AWS etc) are chart like, which give people more intuitive feeling. Thanks Corey H. Unix Pipeline (Brian Kernighan) - Computerphile https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKzonnwoR2I "The Mess We're In" by Joe Armstrong https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKXe3HUG2l4 David
Re: should CLI have a nice UI today?
coreyh wrote: > Should CLI (command line interface) have a nice UI library? You mean, a GUI editor or IDE to write CLI/TUI software? Interesting question ... Emacs Gnus, maybe? https://dataswamp.org/~incal/figures/gnus/gnus-gmane.png -- underground experts united https://dataswamp.org/~incal
Re: should CLI have a nice UI today?
The Wanderer (12023-03-29): > I think it's plausible/probable that it's not so much about the format > itself, but about the data/meaning/information attached to that format. > > Text has much more *nuance* and *detail* attached to it than any > non-text-based programming structure I've ever run across, while also > having more *formality* and *precision* attached to it than e.g. > spoken-word conversations (which have a lot more nuance, because of the > added information channels of tone and inflection and the like). The issue is not what you CAN express with different media: any program can be expressed as a flowchart. The problem is that even the simplest program will require a huge area with tiny icons in it. What matters here is density: text is the densest way we know to express rigorous information in a way a human can access directly. Regards, -- Nicolas George
Re: should CLI have a nice UI today?
Erwan David (12023-03-29): > and do not forget that CLI is what we use in degraded conditions, eg when > there is no way to get graphics and colors (text, or virtualisation solution here> console) > > So we must not depend on graphical capacities to be available I do not think this is a good argument: nothing forces us to use the same tools when we have comfortable screens and keyboards and more at our disposal than when we do not. Of course, we need some tools to work in limited circumstances, but we do not have to use these tools every day. You do what you will, but personally I will keep using zsh and its features, I will not make /bin/dash my default shell just because I sometimes have to connect to devices where it is the only shell. And if that means my finger will try zsh automatisms when I am on these devices, so be it. Regards, -- Nicolas George
Re: should CLI have a nice UI today?
On 2023-03-29 at 10:09, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 09:51:13AM -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote: > >>> I think you are being too harsh here. Such a question may come >>> genuinely from someone who hasn't experienced the power of the >>> CLI, which, once you've taken the firs step gently takes you to >>> small one-liners, little loops and bigger and bigger programs. >>> >>> It has this seamless "growth path" which helps and entices its >>> users to get better, something I miss from most GUIs, which >>> rather tend to degrade the user to a click machine. I don't know >>> whether this is inherent to GUIs or just the current "social >>> convention" underlying actual GUIs. >> >> I think it's the same underlying reasons why programming languages >> are almost universally represented as text: maybe it's just because >> of habit or "social convention", but I think there's something more >> fundamental at play, which make it very hard to make non-textual >> programming languages (and maybe even formal systems in general). > > Perhaps roughly 3k to 4k years of storing, transmitting and > retrieving information in written form have a part in it. > > It may be a social convention, but by now it runs so deep that I'm > convinced you'll find epigenetic traces of it in us humans. I think it's plausible/probable that it's not so much about the format itself, but about the data/meaning/information attached to that format. Text has much more *nuance* and *detail* attached to it than any non-text-based programming structure I've ever run across, while also having more *formality* and *precision* attached to it than e.g. spoken-word conversations (which have a lot more nuance, because of the added information channels of tone and inflection and the like). If you can contrive another format for representing the user's intention that enables comparable or greater amounts of expressiveness, while not sacrificing much if any precision or rigor, I suspect that that format might be able to equal or surpass text for programming, etc., purposes. Good luck with doing that, though; if such a thing were practical, it would very likely have been invented long since. Unless it only becomes practical with a technology that's only become available relatively recently, but unless e.g. the recent forays into "AI" represent such a thing, I'm not sure what candidates for such a thing there might be. (And even those "AI"s are interacting with people through text.) -- The Wanderer The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: should CLI have a nice UI today?
Le 29/03/2023 à 16:24, Nicolas George a écrit : to...@tuxteam.de (12023-03-29): Perhaps roughly 3k to 4k years of storing, transmitting and retrieving information in written form have a part in it. It may be a social convention, but by now it runs so deep that I'm convinced you'll find epigenetic traces of it in us humans. Or perhaps those 3-4K years of storing information have selected a format that is close to the best possible with the limitations of our brains, our eyes and our hands. Keyboards are roughly 150 years old: it is possible we find some improvement on the way they are designed that makes entering data more efficient. On the other hand, computers have not changed the fact that data enters us mostly as images and sound, so I predict it is unlikely we find means significantly more efficient than reading. Regards, and do not forget that CLI is what we use in degraded conditions, eg when there is no way to get graphics and colors (text, or favorite virtualisation solution here> console) So we must not depend on graphical capacities to be available
Re: should CLI have a nice UI today?
to...@tuxteam.de (12023-03-29): > Perhaps roughly 3k to 4k years of storing, transmitting and retrieving > information in written form have a part in it. > > It may be a social convention, but by now it runs so deep that I'm > convinced you'll find epigenetic traces of it in us humans. Or perhaps those 3-4K years of storing information have selected a format that is close to the best possible with the limitations of our brains, our eyes and our hands. Keyboards are roughly 150 years old: it is possible we find some improvement on the way they are designed that makes entering data more efficient. On the other hand, computers have not changed the fact that data enters us mostly as images and sound, so I predict it is unlikely we find means significantly more efficient than reading. Regards, -- Nicolas George
Re: should CLI have a nice UI today?
On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 09:51:13AM -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote: > > I think you are being too harsh here. Such a question may come > > genuinely from someone who hasn't experienced the power of the > > CLI, which, once you've taken the firs step gently takes you > > to small one-liners, little loops and bigger and bigger programs. > > > > It has this seamless "growth path" which helps and entices > > its users to get better, something I miss from most GUIs, which > > rather tend to degrade the user to a click machine. I don't > > know whether this is inherent to GUIs or just the current > > "social convention" underlying actual GUIs. > > I think it's the same underlying reasons why programming languages are > almost universally represented as text: maybe it's just because of habit > or "social convention", but I think there's something more fundamental > at play, which make it very hard to make non-textual programming > languages (and maybe even formal systems in general). Perhaps roughly 3k to 4k years of storing, transmitting and retrieving information in written form have a part in it. It may be a social convention, but by now it runs so deep that I'm convinced you'll find epigenetic traces of it in us humans. Cheers -- t signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: should CLI have a nice UI today?
> I think you are being too harsh here. Such a question may come > genuinely from someone who hasn't experienced the power of the > CLI, which, once you've taken the firs step gently takes you > to small one-liners, little loops and bigger and bigger programs. > > It has this seamless "growth path" which helps and entices > its users to get better, something I miss from most GUIs, which > rather tend to degrade the user to a click machine. I don't > know whether this is inherent to GUIs or just the current > "social convention" underlying actual GUIs. I think it's the same underlying reasons why programming languages are almost universally represented as text: maybe it's just because of habit or "social convention", but I think there's something more fundamental at play, which make it very hard to make non-textual programming languages (and maybe even formal systems in general). Stefan
Re: should CLI have a nice UI today?
Hi, El vie., 24 mar. 2023 16:57, Tom escribió: > > >> Should CLI (command line interface) have a nice UI library? > > > > There are many. The generic underlying library is usually > > ncurses. > > But it needs to be stressed that there are many. For Python there is > Textualize [1], for Go there is Charm [2], rust has a TUI crate [3] > among other options. > > Also, OP might be interested in this list of "Modern Unix" tools. [4] > > Cheers, > Tom > > [1] https://www.textualize.io > [2] https://github.com/charmbracelet > [3] https://docs.rs/tui/latest/tui/ > [4] https://github.com/ibraheemdev/modern-unix > I would add awesome-shell list: https://github.com/alebcay/awesome-shell Regards
Re: should CLI have a nice UI today?
On Sat, Mar 25, 2023 at 09:13:22AM +0100, DdB wrote: > Am 24.03.2023 um 12:32 schrieb cor...@free.fr: > > Hello, > > > > Should CLI (command line interface) have a nice UI library? > > today web dev has so many libraries that make web pages with > > rich/colorful interactive views. [...] > Well, how do you call messages, that provoke troll replies? [...] I think you are being too harsh here. Such a question may come genuinely from someone who hasn't experienced the power of the CLI, which, once you've taken the firs step gently takes you to small one-liners, little loops and bigger and bigger programs. It has this seamless "growth path" which helps and entices its users to get better, something I miss from most GUIs, which rather tend to degrade the user to a click machine. I don't know whether this is inherent to GUIs or just the current "social convention" underlying actual GUIs. One might argue that corporations having promoted the first widespread GUIs (Microsoft, Apple, etc) have some interest in keeping their users dependent. Whatever. But what the OP gets right is: this "first step" to be taken is a steep one (I've seen more than enough smart people fight with that). I wish we had the stamina and creativity to help people over that "first step", and having some kind of low level GUI with a soft transition to CLI could be really a helpful tool there. That wouldn't be totally new. In the late 1970ies and early 1980ies (the times of Scheme, Smalltalk and so on) there was this idea that software had to have a pedagogical component enabling their users to "grow" if they wished so. Smalltalk's GUI was composable in ways very few GUIs are today, showing off characteristics you only find in CLIs these days. What happened to this? Anyway, back to the topic: I think you are being unjust by calling troll on this one. I may be wrong, but I recommend applying Hanlon's razor. Cheers -- t signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: should CLI have a nice UI today?
Am 24.03.2023 um 12:32 schrieb cor...@free.fr: > Hello, > > Should CLI (command line interface) have a nice UI library? > today web dev has so many libraries that make web pages with > rich/colorful interactive views. > But CLI is still in dull mode. That should be improved in these days. > for example, run "df -h" we got the statistics with plain text. But web > statistics for cloud storage (GCP,AWS etc) are chart like, which give > people more intuitive feeling. > > Thanks > Corey H. Well, how do you call messages, that provoke troll replies? In other words: Just the way, this was written, let me hide away. But since so many people seem to take this seriously, i got to say: FWIW: If i was searching for GUI niceties, i would take a look at Windows. Because it is easier to use for simple tasks, and requires less understanding - at first. For me, it is exactly the other way round: It is exactly because of the many things, i could not do in Windows, that i came to linux and after some years of "playing" with it, i would never want to go back... One of the reasons being the power and flexibility of the command line. Sometimes, doing something at the command prompt for the first time, may be daunting, but then the history is my friend and helps to collect the raw steps and to generate a script for future use, which is empowering even more. And over time, it seems to me as if my thinking changes into searching for the most generic way to do things instead of operating on single entities. Just being able to compose a specific "find ... -print0" command and pipe it into xargs -0 (or parallel) makes so many tasks straight forward and complete in themselves, that i have a clear understanding about the difficulties/impossibility to create a GUI with identical powers. Even if i am assisting some neighbor at using their linux computer, i find myself losing my patience at times and just opening up a terminal window to execute some job faster than pointing and clicking could provide. I LOVE my command line! just my 2 cents DdB
Re: should CLI have a nice UI today?
On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 05:26:07PM -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote: > > Should CLI (command line interface) have a nice UI library? > > I don't understand the question. A library that does what? > "Nice" in which respect? > > > today web dev has so many libraries that make web pages with rich/colorful > > interactive views. > > Not sure how that's relevant to a UI library for a CLI. > > > But CLI is still in dull mode. That should be improved in these days. > > for example, run "df -h" we got the statistics with plain text. But web > > statistics for cloud storage (GCP,AWS etc) are chart like, which give people > > more intuitive feeling. > > Do you mean CLI tools should be able to generate&display images? > That could be useful, and indeed xterm and friends nowadays are able to > display images so it's possible, but I suspect it's just easier to have > CLI tools generate JPEG files and then display them in > a separate window. > > But maybe it's easier to go the other way: look for a GUI that can be > conveniently controlled from a "command line" or some such combination. > There's a lot of work in the general vicinity. I think Jupiter could > qualify for some cases, Emacs for others, or you could use the > Javascript console of Firefox for that as well. After a detour around whiptail I ended up full-circle with Tcl/Tk. It is still the nicest, smallest self-contained graphical toolkit enabling one to wrap some GUI around CLI programs. The whole pack is one or two orders of magnitude smaller than some web browser monstrosity and much easier to extend, handle and embed. The language (Tcl) may be a bit alien at first, but all in all I think wrapping one's head around a "modern" toolkit programming interface (à la Gtk or Qt) is still at least one order of magnitude less fun than that. Why is it that complexity takes over and we end up painting ourselves into corners? Then, corporate folks ramble about "path dependencies" and things, instead of acknowledging that we humans sometimes just aren't good at taking decisions ;-) But perhaps that's just me. Cheers -- t signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: should CLI have a nice UI today?
On Fri, 24 Mar 2023 davidson wrote: On Fri, 24 Mar 2023 cor...@free.fr wrote: Hello, Should CLI (command line interface) have a nice UI library? The teletype (whether virtualised or not) and shells which constitute that "CLI" are interfaces designed for a purpose. Speaking of that purpose, at around the half-hour mark in this video, Ken Thompson describes the genesis of the unix pipe mechanism: Ken Thompson interviewed by Brian Kernighan (at the Vintage Computer Federation in 2019) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EY6q5dv_B-o You might notice how relatively animated he becomes, talking about it over the course of 5 minutes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EY6q5dv_B-o&t=30m15s today web dev has so many libraries that make web pages with rich/colorful interactive views. The web browser is also an interface designed for a purpose. A different purpose. A purpose which (in the case of firefox) apparently does not include exporting the entire browser configuration to a plain text file so that we can analyse and transform it with the full orchestra of text-processing tools. Personally, this baffles me. But CLI is still in dull mode. No sweetie, it really isn't. Please get a clue. To be more specific, composing processes is fun, which is the opposite of dull. That should be improved in these days. Even venerable tools have been, can be, and will be improved. My money's on those improvements coming predominantly from people who recognise what the tools are for. Good luck with your future projects, my friend. Choose them wisely. Because life is short. Also, in the meantime do play and have fun. For the same reason. -- Hackers are free people. They are like artists. If they are in a good mood, they get up in the morning and begin painting their pictures. -- Vladimir Putin
Re: should CLI have a nice UI today?
> There's a lot of work in the general vicinity. I think Jupiter could ^^^ Jupyter -- Stefan
Re: should CLI have a nice UI today?
> Should CLI (command line interface) have a nice UI library? I don't understand the question. A library that does what? "Nice" in which respect? > today web dev has so many libraries that make web pages with rich/colorful > interactive views. Not sure how that's relevant to a UI library for a CLI. > But CLI is still in dull mode. That should be improved in these days. > for example, run "df -h" we got the statistics with plain text. But web > statistics for cloud storage (GCP,AWS etc) are chart like, which give people > more intuitive feeling. Do you mean CLI tools should be able to generate&display images? That could be useful, and indeed xterm and friends nowadays are able to display images so it's possible, but I suspect it's just easier to have CLI tools generate JPEG files and then display them in a separate window. But maybe it's easier to go the other way: look for a GUI that can be conveniently controlled from a "command line" or some such combination. There's a lot of work in the general vicinity. I think Jupiter could qualify for some cases, Emacs for others, or you could use the Javascript console of Firefox for that as well. Stefan
Re: should CLI have a nice UI today?
On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 12:00 Charlie Gibbs wrote: > IMHO computer systems should be ugly and boring. Ugly, as in lacking > all the eye candy that gets in the way, and boring as in just doing > what you want without unpleasant surprises. > > Short answer: Not over my dead Teletype. Hear, hear! -Tom
Re: should CLI have a nice UI today?
On Fri, 24 Mar 2023 cor...@free.fr wrote: Hello, Should CLI (command line interface) have a nice UI library? The teletype (whether virtualised or not) and shells which constitute that "CLI" are interfaces designed for a purpose. today web dev has so many libraries that make web pages with rich/colorful interactive views. The web browser is also an interface designed for a purpose. A different purpose. But CLI is still in dull mode. No sweetie, it really isn't. Please get a clue. That should be improved in these days. Even venerable tools have been, can be, and will be improved. My money's on those improvements coming predominantly from people who recognise what the tools are for. Good luck with your future projects, my friend. Choose them wisely. -- Hackers are free people. They are like artists. If they are in a good mood, they get up in the morning and begin painting their pictures. -- Vladimir Putin
Re: should CLI have a nice UI today?
On Fri, 24 Mar 2023 09:35:09 -0700 Charlie Gibbs wrote: > > IMHO computer systems should be ugly and boring. Ugly, as in lacking > all the eye candy that gets in the way, and boring as in just doing > what you want without unpleasant surprises. > > Short answer: Not over my dead Teletype. > I have to agree. This business of having to have a GUI for everything is excessive. It's why long time admins typically go straight to the command line, rather than enlisting the help of some mouse-and-window whiz bang program. Paul -- Paul M. Foster Personal Blog: http://noferblatz.com Company Site: http://quillandmouse.com Software Projects: https://gitlab.com/paulmfoster
Re: should CLI have a nice UI today?
Hi, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > IMHO computer systems should be ugly and boring. +1 Have a nice day :) Thomas
Re: should CLI have a nice UI today?
On Fri Mar 24 09:13:41 2023 cor...@free.fr wrote: > Should CLI (command line interface) have a nice UI library? As an option, possibly. As a standard default, NO! > today web dev has so many libraries that make web pages with > rich/colorful interactive views. And which often get in the way of getting real work done. > But CLI is still in dull mode. That should be improved in these days. What's wrong with dull? Sometimes you just want an answer without all the eye candy. If you're making a shopping list, does it have to be a coffee table book with 100 pages in dazzling colour? > for example, run "df -h" we got the statistics with plain text. But > web statistics for cloud storage (GCP,AWS etc) are chart like, which > give people more intuitive feeling. But you can redirect the output of "df -h" to a file for archival purposes, or pipe it to other tools that can do a quick analysis. And once you get to know it, you can get an intuitive view from well-designed text output much faster than with a graphical view, as well as actually being able to do something with it. And what do you do if you're having trouble getting X running, and can't see those fancy displays? Give up and get a Windows box? Let me give you a real-world example. Recently I renewed a credit card. I tried going onto the bank's web site to activate it. I can access the bank's web site for normal banking functions, but halfway through all the pretty screens (how many pretty screens do you really need to activate a credit card?) the process froze. I went to the bank and complained. I was lucky enough to get a supervisor. The first thing he said was, "What browser are you using?" When I said I was using Firefox, he replied, "Never heard of it." Because I was not using one of the approved browsers from our favourite monopolies (Edge and Chrome), I was persona non grata. And all so I could be presented with a wonderful User Experience (yuck!), when half a dozen lines of text could have done the job quickly and let me get on with my day. IMHO computer systems should be ugly and boring. Ugly, as in lacking all the eye candy that gets in the way, and boring as in just doing what you want without unpleasant surprises. Short answer: Not over my dead Teletype. -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | You can't save the earth \ /| unless you're willing to X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | make other people sacrifice. / \ if you read it the right way. |-- Dogbert the green consultant
Re: should CLI have a nice UI today?
I forgot to attribute Dan's writing, and shouldn't have trimmed his words as much, after all mentioning exactly the kind of libraries I listed. Apologies for the fuss and redo: On 3/24/23 12:42, Dan Ritter wrote: > cor...@free.fr wrote:>> Should CLI (command line interface) have a nice UI library? > > There are many. The generic underlying library is usually > ncurses. On top of that are more libraries than there are > languages. But it needs to be stressed that there are many. For Python there is Textualize [1], for Go there is Charm [2], rust has a TUI crate [3] among other options. Also, OP might be interested in this list of "Modern Unix" tools. [4] Cheers, Tom [1] https://www.textualize.io [2] https://github.com/charmbracelet [3] https://docs.rs/tui/latest/tui/ [4] https://github.com/ibraheemdev/modern-unix
Re: should CLI have a nice UI today?
Should CLI (command line interface) have a nice UI library? There are many. The generic underlying library is usually ncurses. But it needs to be stressed that there are many. For Python there is Textualize [1], for Go there is Charm [2], rust has a TUI crate [3] among other options. Also, OP might be interested in this list of "Modern Unix" tools. [4] Cheers, Tom [1] https://www.textualize.io [2] https://github.com/charmbracelet [3] https://docs.rs/tui/latest/tui/ [4] https://github.com/ibraheemdev/modern-unix
Re: should CLI have a nice UI today?
cor...@free.fr writes: > Hello, > > Should CLI (command line interface) have a nice UI library? > today web dev has so many libraries that make web pages with > rich/colorful interactive views. > But CLI is still in dull mode. That should be improved in these days. > for example, run "df -h" we got the statistics with plain text. But > web statistics for cloud storage (GCP,AWS etc) are chart like, which > give people more intuitive feeling. > > Thanks > Corey H. I was very impressed with the signal meter in nmtui which I had not used before until yesterday. It has those chunky graphic characters like Teletext used to be. This sort of thing (I can't do it justice): 🬵🬻
Re: should CLI have a nice UI today?
cor...@free.fr wrote: > Should CLI (command line interface) have a nice UI library? There are many. The generic underlying library is usually ncurses. On top of that are more libraries than there are languages. > But CLI is still in dull mode. That should be improved in these days. > for example, run "df -h" we got the statistics with plain text. But web > statistics for cloud storage (GCP,AWS etc) are chart like, which give people > more intuitive feeling. df and du need to work on every system, even teletypes. You can install the ncdu package or gdu https://github.com/dundee/gdu if you want something fancier. -dsr-
Re: should CLI have a nice UI today?
Ansi gets used to make the eye candy then that ansi breaks screen reader accessibility with cli screen readers. No thank you! -- Jude "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and amo. Please use in that order." Ed Howdershelt 1940. On Fri, 24 Mar 2023, cor...@free.fr wrote: > Hello, > > Should CLI (command line interface) have a nice UI library? > today web dev has so many libraries that make web pages with rich/colorful > interactive views. > But CLI is still in dull mode. That should be improved in these days. > for example, run "df -h" we got the statistics with plain text. But web > statistics for cloud storage (GCP,AWS etc) are chart like, which give people > more intuitive feeling. > > Thanks > Corey H. > >
should CLI have a nice UI today?
Hello, Should CLI (command line interface) have a nice UI library? today web dev has so many libraries that make web pages with rich/colorful interactive views. But CLI is still in dull mode. That should be improved in these days. for example, run "df -h" we got the statistics with plain text. But web statistics for cloud storage (GCP,AWS etc) are chart like, which give people more intuitive feeling. Thanks Corey H.
