Why is it that Linux is command based and Windows is GUI based

[rahul.6sept]

Dear all,

I would like to know as why is it that Linux was developed as command based (obviously this is the reason for it being more powerful os as when compared to Windows) but Windows is developed as GUI based?

Although GUI makes Windows more user friendly but it compromises with its security.

May be its with the thought to penetrate more into the market. ur thought plz...


Regards,

rc

 

[tpetar]

Dont think that Linux is virus free, and bug free. Linux also have GUI.

 

[betwixt]

Linux isn't virus free but it's much more difficult to hide malicious code when the source is freely available to look at. The great weakness in Windows security is that the contents of files is secret and therefore difficult to verify.

Quite a lot of Windows programs are command line based too, the GUI sits on top of a CLI and passes parameters down to the underlying program.

Brian

 

[RetroTechie]

(..) that Linux was developed as command based (obviously this is the reason for it being more powerful os as when compared to Windows)

Being more powerful has nothing to do with commandline vs GUI based. In the case of Windows <-> Linux, it has probably more to do with differences in history, design, target audience, paid developers vs volunteer developers, philosophy behind it, etc etc. A GUI is something you can make as secure or insecure as you want (that is, as far as the underlying system allows).

Also "powerful" can be measured in many ways: most secure, most productive for users, highest throughput, supporting the highest # of CPU's, largest selection of included software, easiest to adapt / port onto new platforms, etc. What kind(s) of "powerful" did you mean?

Linux isn't virus free but it's much more difficult to hide malicious code when the source is freely available to look at. The great weakness in Windows security is that the contents of files is secret and therefore difficult to verify.

Having source code available doesn't automagically mean it's easy for users to verify what's in their OS... when's the last time you compared source code verified to be from official site, with machine instructions as found in a corresponding binary? Or used same source code to compile everything yourself?

For 99.999+ % of users: never. Nothing that stops you from starting Linux distro #562 and upload ISO's that have a backdoor installed somewhere.

So it all comes down to the same thing: do you trust the people or organization you get the binary / ISO from? For me personally: yes, I would trust for example 'the collective' behind Debian Linux more than 'the collective' behind Windows 7. But that heavily depends on the particular distribution, not on whether source code is available (that is still important, but mostly for other reasons).

 

[tpetar]

One my friend have linux core in heart, and even if word or sentence starting with micro... or Bill Ga... he get some attack of schizophrenia. When he do something on linux he typing and typing and typing ..... and on finish he got someting. GUI interface should make PC usage easier, also linux have lots of hardware requirements if using GUI, also I must say that is not true myth stories about linux stability. In other hands MS have good marketing and in specification they include all, even if that works or not, after when people try to use that they say ups... you need service packs.... and such things.

One thing is sure, people should use OS for their needs, and I think that is good to try and have both to see.

 

[rahul.6sept]

In my case, i've both Win7 and RHEL installed in my pc. although i find linux interesting but in most cases i find Windows more handy, for ex. while using internet/printers its much more easier to get drivers available for windows then that for linux.

May be with passing time linux users will increse and this will lead to more availability of support from company/organisation.

 

[shell.albert]

Yes,I support upstairs.Windows is GUI based,more user friendly for persons that not have much computer technology.Linux is only for professional person,like software engineer,network administrator.....

- - - Updated - - -

Yes,I support upstairs.Windows is GUI based,more user friendly for persons that not have much computer technology.Linux is only for professional person,like software engineer,network administrator.....

 

[torbai]

To explain the reason why is it that Linux is command based and Windows is GUI based, you should take a glance at the history about Computer, Operating System, Unix, GNU, Linux, and Microsoft. After reading those stories, you will find the answer all by yourself. And you will find that the first five decades after computer was born, is not belonged to the Windows. During that time, people used computers quite well, although GUI was not invented. The first fifty years are not the Stone Age.
GUI is convenient, but it can not be called as "friendly". GUI is only friendly to the person only deal with simple works. Once I was using an Agilent VNA, which has Windows XP installed, I needed to restore S-Parameter data and imagies at 20 different voltage bias. I had to do the same work for 20 times by myself. During that time, I was wondering one question: who is the robot. That work can be done by only one command, but in GUI, I had to do it myself.

 

[tpetar]

In GUI You also have command prompt. You can do lots of things with scripts (batch, perls, vb...).

In your list of OS in history should add Novell and OS/2.

 

[blooz]

Unlike Windows Linux depends on community ,there are thousands of volunteers ready to help you ,just interact with the community it can make a great difference , Linux Distros like Ubuntu have good GUI also ...Some may find it comfortable with Linux another One Windows .Issues like Security actually depends on each person ,If you leave so many doors open it is easy for some one to trespass

 

[Darktrax]

Hmm.. Windows original command line base was DOS with the command prompt, and any graphics was ASCII coloured blocks.
UNIX - derived interfaces were similar - just different equivalent commands and somewhat more powerful in scope.
Windows has only one GUI. Whatever it does you have to live with it.
Linux has choice. Gnome, KDE, Xfce, LMDE, ICEwm (if you like minimalist), Enlightenment, and many others.

 

[JS_Electric]

main motto of linux is to increase programmers and of windows is to increase users.

 

[tpetar]

main motto of linux is to increase programmers and of windows is to increase users.

Additional to this MS increasing money and trying to increase monopole on market with their ideas throught their software solutions.

In other side, in Linux area we have dispersion of programmers/users energy on lots of variants.

 

[Darktrax]

The question was asking why is it that Linux is command based and Windows is GUI based?

The premise of the question contains the built-in assumption that that this is so, and simply asks.. "why?".

I do not accept the premise of the question! Whatever the GUI experience is, in either system, contriving mouse clicks to be the alias for a command string is something they all have. Even now, however deeply the command is buried in a GUI experience, one can still find a place where the command can be seen. On XP, try Start --> Run --> , and see a box where you can deliver a command eg. "notepad" or "regedit".
Sorry - I have no experience of a later Windows system.

It is true that Linux users more often find the command line useful or necessary. It is true that they have a huge choice of GUI, and the control to tweak them at will, and even write program to add a feature, or alter scripts to customize it. The modern trends in Linux GUI have tended to reduce the built-in user configuration menu choices before resorting to directly editing a script or configuration file, but in the end, all the GUI features, whatever the system, end up by invoking a piece of program. Very often, but not exclusively, the GUI invokes a text command that could have been delivered via a command line.

"Not exclusively" means the millions of tablets, phones , sat-nav, and other embedded-system devices where a command line may never have been part of the process. Possibly there are more Linux-based kit in ARM and similar processors with embedded GUI than there are Windows PCs on the planet. I don't know if that is true, but I think it possible.

 

[tgotwalt1158]

All operating systems are command based in their core since they are developed with computer languages which may be of higher or lower level but all ultimately communicate the processor in machine language. So, it may be realized that everything is coding, therefore the success of an operating system depends upon how smartly a coding is done that is which takes the lowest amount of RAM and as little time as possible to process an instruction. What does the graphic user interface is that it automates the process of execution of a command through an easy point and shoot graphical way which feels very userfriendly to the operator. But it comes with an expense of more memory and processing power, and hence more powerful hardware and the cost. It may be generalized that communicating to the processors is far more easier with higher level programming languages than the lower level, but at the expense of powerful hardware. With the advancement in hardware, this gap is narrowing day by day and the trend is going to the favour of higher level programming, the examples to that fact are success in the fields of speech recognition and picture recognition, and if that trend goes higher and higher then that day will come when people will communicate with their computers by talks, gestures and even just by staring a sensitive screen or holographic section. That would be the transition from Graphical User Interface to Sensual Mutual Interface. If one english asks some chinese in english about something to eat, it would be very hard to explain to chinese in english but if he gestures of eating, the chinese would soon understand that english needs something to eat, since both english and chinese have in their brains programmed command lines of eating which could easily be evoked just by a gesture and not by lot of conversation between two in compatible languages. This is the difference in command line and GUI.

 

[xaccto]

you may like to remember windows started with 3.0,3.1 which is actually a gui that you boot from the command line of DOS
C:\WINDOWS\WINDOWS.EXE
hehe

 

[tpetar]

you may like to remember windows started with 3.0,3.1 which is actually a gui that you boot from the command line of DOS
C:\WINDOWS\WINDOWS.EXE
hehe

First Windows GUI version was Windows 1.0 in I think '84-'85, then Windows 2.0, and finaly explosion of Windows 3.0 on markets. :wink:

 

[rahul.6sept]

I think tpetar is quite correct as that was the time when Microsoft was launched (if i'm correct).

Going to Darktrax's comments.......GUI is only helpful for small set of data, when amount of data increases GUI is of no use, there comes the use of commands...Linux scores over Windows in this.

 

[Darktrax]

Going to Darktrax's comments.......GUI is only helpful for small set of data, when amount of data increases GUI is of no use, there comes the use of commands...Linux scores over Windows in this.

I did not want to say it in this context - but I do agree! For everyday use, I like the GUI (many sorts!), but when the need is to deliver a command with wide power, the command line can be taken to an art form. I sometimes envy the folks who have such a good understanding of regular expressions, posix, and can make devastatingly powerful command line stuff that looks a bit cryptic.

 

[tpetar]

Command based OS can be useful in electronics like light variant of OS.


Some interesting material :

Linux on an 8-bit micro
**broken link removed**