
Terminal Forever - ashitlerferad
http://www.commitstrip.com/en/2016/12/22/terminal-forever/
======
zzalpha
I'm not sure where I came across this concept, but I've heard the use of a
terminal described as entering into an interactive conversation with the
computer.

That is, where users of a point-and-click interface might interact with a
computer superficially, the command-line allows for a fluidity of expression
and progression of intent that it's extremely difficult to supplant.

When you realize this, the mistake this comic makes is obvious: the command-
line is, for many problem domains, simply a superior method of human-computer
interaction. In fact, in many ways, it's the GUI that squanders the immense
power we have at our fingertips, as it frequently makes it more difficult to
express intent rather than less.

For example, here's a basic task: Find all files in a given directory with
spaces in their names, and replace those spaces with underscores.

At a command-line I can think of any number of ways to solve this problem. I'd
probably opt for a combination of find, sed, and bash looping.

Now try to do this efficiently in any existing GUI interface that isn't
purpose built for this exact operation.

The conversations we enter into on the command-line allow us to iteratively
build up solutions to problems, solving them with simple, composable tools.
There is simply no GUI equivalent.

~~~
btschaegg
The "conversation with your computer" aside (which basically comes down to
"REPLs trump more static solutions"), I find that many really awesome
solutions for problems came out of restrictions on resources or interaction
possibilities. I assume that Vi and its text operation "language" wouldn't be
invented today, even if it never existed; the modern mind wouldn't try _not_
to use a GUI and base everything on keystrokes. It's far more likely that the
according programmer would go "well that'd be a nice feature! I'll make a
context menu entry for it!".

From a similar perspective: The terminal has by far the best options when it
comes down to interacting with program output based on text. There's nothing
comparable in the GUI world. Yes, using the terminal to edit pictures would be
a Bad Idea™[1][2], but so is using a GUI to do the terminal's job. Pick
adequate tools for your job - and if you refuse to: at least don't bother
those who do.

[1]: Also, did anyone else note how Blade Runner features the _worst_ user
interface for any task in modern sci-fi? I'm talking about the "picture
enhancement" scene. That is not the task you want to control with voice input.
I imagine terminal-based solutions for image editing would have similar
interactions.

[2]: Well, there's Image Magick and the like, but those excel because they're
built for repeatability, not interaction.

------
btschaegg
Is anyone else bothered by the last panel?

The first three have a straight progression from some bulky brick-like
computer to something more mobile, and yet the last panel uses projection of
some sorts. Wouldn't that be a regression of sorts?

I already have the feeling _now_ that if anything will succeed in killing the
terminal, it'll be those tiny touchscreens in our phones. The problem with
those is that they're actually _useful_ on the go.

Now I'm left wondering how a terminal would look like if it was adapted to
such a small screen (half of which is a keyboard) instead of just copied over
from the desktop.

------
Twirrim
They'll have to pry my terminal out of my cold dead hands.

------
BenjiWiebe
Just saying... 1 TB of RAM is likely, but 150 GHz is _extremely_ unlikely.

~~~
aldanor
Yep. We have 1TB RAM on our production boxes today where I work; but 150 GHz
is pretty far from being true...

------
saundby
I'll have a buckling spring keyboard for that hologram computer, myself.

