[LAU] which lau distro is more commandline friendly?

[Raffaele Morelli]

On 22/12/15 at 12:24pm, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 11:39:32 +0100, Raffaele Morelli wrote:
> >On 22/12/15 at 10:56am, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> >> On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 08:31:58 +0100, Raffaele Morelli wrote:  
> >> >"commandline friendly" is totally meaningless    
> >> 
> >> No it isn't, depending to the user's needs, the kind of used distro
> >> has impact. If a user e.g. wants to use command line mainly to
> >> compile software that isn't availbale by the repositories for the
> >> packages, then it makes a difference if a user e.g. chose a long
> >> term support release distro or a distro that often provide releases
> >> or a rolling release.
> >>   
> >
> >Distro are not "long term release", as the phrase says, releases are
> >long term support or not.
> >Releases and distros have nothing to do with the whole point at all,
> >apples and oranges. Repost can be added and source code is available,
> >if someone can't manage with repos and source code the problem is not
> >the cli he is going to use... but the user itself.
> >
> >You can happily use bash, zsh, korn or whatever shell you like on your
> >distro and compiling has nothing to do with the one you choose.
> 
> Please care about the OP's request.
> 
> Users could run into dependency hell when compiling from
> up-to-date upstream sources, if the distro is meant to provide a steady
> work-flow by a long term support release. An Ubuntu LTS, let alone
> special business distros, do not provide up-to-date libraries. If the
> main reason to use command line is to compile software, then it's wise
> to chose a distro that is close to upstream. This is just one example
> why "command line friendly" isn't a bad phrase, if you care about a
> context.
> 
AGain, you are completely missing the "long term support" thing and mixing apples and
oranges, LTS are freezed in terms of new features upgrades.
On the opposite a non LTS release is not freezed so dependencies are kept up-to-date.

> The OP asks about what is provided out of the box and so
> "command line friendly" also means to be able to follow howtos that
> explain command line for out of the box usage of distros.
> 
> The most common login shell for Linux is bash and absolutely no other
> shell, it's just worth to mention dash too, all other shells are in
> context to the OP's request absolutely irrelevant.

Nope, you can change login shell whenever you want, bash is just the default one.
man chsh

I wrote that shell is independent about the OP request, compiling is just the same on zsh,
korn, sh, dash etc etc... you raised this obscure correlation with cli (command line) and
the LTS thing.


> 
> There could be other reasons to prefer command line over GUIs, e.g.
> the need to use Braille. Using audio software that can be used easily
> with Braille doesn't require knowledge about the package management or
> how to compile. That's why we explained that access to the command line
> is easy by all distros, in this context all distros are "command line
> friendly".
> 

Turn of the "spreading confusion" from your default choice Ralf ;-)


-- 
«My mama said to get things done
You'd better not mess with Major Tom»