I never said the CEOs are saints. They’re just not worse than they were 15 years ago. At least for devs/publishers that don’t put micro transactions in full price games.

I don’t own a Nintendo console older than a Wii and I don’t plan on changing that.

I also don’t plan on playing games that try to make me pay for it tenfold by enticing me to buy various in-game currencies.

Touché. But that’s a different problem. They don’t even need to raise the base price though, many of them are free to play anyways. And those that both have microtransactions and are full price should be avoided anyways.

The do have an opportunity now. People will complain but they won’t stop buying games.

Exactly.

Doesn’t change that $60 in 2010 are almost $90 today. Devs/publishers aren’t any more greedy than they were 15 years ago.

Not solely. If you paid $60 for a game in 2010, that‘d be almost $88 today, simply due to inflation. It’s a wonder the prices haven’t skyrocketed any sooner.

Not that I want that, I‘d prefer games being affordable but it was kinda inevitable considering the way the economy is going…

Also, I‘d personally rather pay $90 once than have a cheap game with a shitload of micro transactions. Of course, developers/publishers that ask $90 for a game and still include a bunch of micro transactions can fuck right of.

On the one hand, with rising inflation and skyrocketing development costs, I can totally understand why game prices are getting dangerously close to the triple digits. Games rn are cheaper that they ever were yeet yet development is not.

However, that’s still a lot of money and I really wouldn’t wanna pay that.

Yea, the renault twingo of my ex-fwb felt borderline dangerous above 130kph while in my workplace’s Mercedes B-Class, my comfortable cruising speed is roughly 160kph with 200kph still feeling perfectly in control.

UI that either lacks important functionality or is laid out bad enough that the functionality might just as well not be there.

Sorry, let me be more clear: Fun is subjective and I for example do not find the Linux terminal any more fun than the Windows cmd and I don’t like that I have to use it. I find it useful as a fallback for lackluster UI.

Fun is subjective. I do not consider the CLI fun. It’s useful but not what I want to spend my time with.

I pursue Linux because I want a FOSS OS and its privacy and security benefits, not because I want to tinker and learn the CLI.

I mean, I do want to tinker and I have learned the CLI but it’s not why I pursue Linux.

I’m aware stuff like that exists. I was being sarcastic. Just wanted to highlight, that searching through recent commands would be much easier in a GUI as well. Should’ve used a “/s”, my bad.

Also, I too wouldn’t highlight Windows as a staple of good UI design. Their jumble of 4 different design languages nested into each other in the most unintuitive ways with some actions having multiple possible ways and some having been hidden away deeply is not how I’d want a GUI to be. It’s also not user friendly and very much one reason I’ve banished windows from my household.

But, people are used to it. At least enough to find basic settings. And I think that’s the best argument against pushing the terminal. People are familiar with graphical interfaces. They understand commonly used symbols (like cog = settings and similar stuff) because all mainstream operating systems (be it desktop or mobile) have used something similar for close to 3 decades. They are familiar with menus and submenus. They don’t know where everything is, when they use an unfamiliar program/OS, of course but they are familiar with the concepts. They are not with CLIs. You are, because you have been using them for a while. So am I and so are quite a few other people who regularly use it. The average Joe computer user doesn’t.

Even stuff like tab to autocomplete and arrow-up for history are foreign concepts for someone who has never used a terminal before. Sure, it’s not hard to learn but they’d need to learn it. Not to mention, that a lot of commands are abstract enough that they are hard to memorise and thus to understand. It’s like a language you do have to learn. Not a difficult language if you don’t need to do complicated things but it’s a hurdle nonetheless.

Which is also why don’t like the “literally just telling the computer what to do” argument, I’ve heard a few times now. I mean, it’s not entirely wrong but it’s telling the computer what to do in its language, not in yours. You don’t type “Hello computer please update my system and programs” or even just “update”, you type “sudo pacman -Syu”. Any non-tech person will be utterly confused at what even a “sudo” is or what pacman has to do with Linux. And yes, pacman is an especially obtrusive example and Arch definitely not the distro for newbies, regardless of their stance on terminals but my point still stands, even with apt, dnf and co. To tell a computer what to do via CLI, you’ll either have to either learn its language or copy it from someone who does.

A GUI however tries to translate that language for you already and give you context clues based on common culture (floppy = save, cog = settings, folder = directories, etc.). It’s a language even small children and illiterate people and can understand, to some extent at least.

But yes, I do agree, the most popular distros are fairly streamlined and mostly useable without CLI. And that’s good. Makes it possible for Linux to slowly gain market share even among non technical people and I can, in good faith, recommend/install it for friends and family, knowing they’ll manage unless there’s a problem. And I do think, Linux is getting better in this regard every day, and while not on par yet with the current mainstream OSes in terms of ease of use, it’s not far behind anymore. But it is still behind.

I’m just tired of the elitist-enthusiast who doesn’t want linux to become easier to use for the everyman because it’d be less special. That attitude does not further FOSS and does not help anyone. Because that’s not how you reduce Microsoft’s, Google’s or Apple’s influence on the tech scene.

What if we took the most used commands and instead of having to arrow-up through them, we just laid them out in a list or a grid, so you could click on them? And then we give them a little icon each that makes it a little prettier, more quickly recognizable and easier to click on. And because there are a lot of commands, maybe sort them by category. But who’d ever want that?

Also, I don’t know, when you last used a settings app or something similar but once you‘re more than two sub pages in, you’re usually in the realm of stuff even people who use a cli a lot would have to look up the commands. Because a good UI Design makes stuff you need regularly easy accessible.

But people don’t memorize which subpage of the control panel leads to what they need. They go after content clues. You need to change your ip adress? Well it’s probably somewhere in the settings under the category network.

But cli you have to memorize. It doesn’t give you any context clues

Most people do know how to use a computer though. Windows and macOS have been around for a very long time by now, and both have not required you to use the CLI for anything but very extreme cases in more than 25 years. You’re not starting with a blank slate. They know how a GUI is supposed to work. It is self explanatory to them. Shoving them towards a CLI is making them relearn stuff they already knew how to do. There’s a reason a lot of Windows migrants end up with KDE or Cinnamon. It’s familiar, it’s easy. Most people do in fact associate a cog with settings. CLI aren’t familiar to most people and thus a much larger hurdle.

Also, I’m not talking about fixing problems. The CLI is a perfectly valid tool to fix problems. Not everything has to be graphical. Just enough that you don’t need it unless something breaks.

The terminal will never reach mainstream adoption because it already had in the 80s and 90s and people progressed away from CLI and towards GUI. It’s archaic. It’s a fallback. It’s useful, sure. I use it regularly. But not because I‘d not just prefer having a graphical front end. It’s only more useful because the respective front end is lacking.

Also, the „shut up and go use Windows/macOS“ attitude seems very elitist to me. You‘d rather have the non techies suffer high prices, privacy violations, etc., have them suffer microsoft/Apple instead of making the system more inviting for them? And you‘d rather have another company (like valve is doing right now btw) swoop in and offer what you refuse to entertain because you want everyone to do things the way you like to do things.

The CLI is very much an enthusiast/professional tool. It isn‘t and it shouldn’t be the default in this day and age. Saying everyone should know how to use the CLI is like saying everyone should know how to use a DSLR camera instead of just relying on their phone’s or everyone should know how to drive a manual transmission car. Those are all great skills to have but most people just want a snapshot or a car that gets them from A to B safely. They don’t want to think about it. And most people just want a computer that gets out of their way. And why shouldn’t they have it?

And I’m not saying the terminal shouldn’t exist and that people shouldn’t be encouraged to learn about how it functions. But there should always be the option to completely avoid it. Because of you want mainstream adoption, you need to face the sad reality, that the Mainstream doesn’t want to look under the hood. And if you don’t want mainstream adoption, why?

A good modern gui also presents itself in front of you. It directs your attention to important buttons/options. You don’t need any prior knowledge to know that a cog shaped button labeled settings will take you to settings. Good UIs are self explanatory. CLI are not.

To be able to use the terminal, you either need another person to tell you the necessary commands or search for a tutorial yourself, either online or somewhere else.

That’s not intuitive. It’s not too hard to learn, but you need to actively pursue learning how to do it. An average person doesn’t want to do that. An average person doesn’t even want to memorize more than one password. They should. But they won’t. Thus, password managers were created. And non technical minded people still don’t even use those.

You got to look at it from the point of view of someone who has no interest in knowing any more about their computer than how to turn it on, where to put their photos and how to open their browser and maybe an office suite. The kind of people that wouldn’t even update the system, if there wasn’t a notification asking for it. They’re not stupid. They just don’t care about computers and don’t want to spend any more mental power on them than necessary, the same way you wouldn’t want to think about manually keeping the timing of your car’s engine on point for the current conditions. You just want it to get you safely from A to B. Or maybe you do, but I assure you, most people wouldn’t.