# Linux - No Command Line Interface Possible? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [July 17, 2001, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/linux-no-command-line-interface-possible/72771 "2001-07-17T05:28:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![DougC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7feea3/32.png) [@DougC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DougC)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2001, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/linux-no-command-line-interface-possible/72771/1 "2001-07-17T05:28:37Z")
- - - As I’ve read it, computer OS writers create a command-line interface, and then write a GUI based on that. Has there been any OS that was fully, exclusively created to run as a GUI only, with no command-line interface at all? Could Linux be re-written this way? - MC ---
**Author:** ![Chas.E](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e99b99/32.png) [@Chas.E](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chas.E)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2001, 7:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/linux-no-command-line-interface-possible/72771/2 "2001-07-17T07:06:01Z")
In a way, Linux already has this capability. You can run X Windows and avoid the command line entirely. But there is always something you need to tweak manually, so you still need the command line. The original MacOS is the classic example of an OS with no command line, it was exclusively designed to function through GUI only. For modern systems, I’m quite impressed with the way MacOS X hides most of the BSD functionality to the GUI, it is entirely invisible unless you’re dealing through the command line. ---
**Author:** ![kferr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/71e660/32.png) [@kferr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kferr)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2001, 11:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/linux-no-command-line-interface-possible/72771/3 "2001-07-17T11:34:16Z")
Having a single all-singing all-dancing GUI kind of goes against the Linux/Unix philosophy of small utilities that get plugged together with pipes. For example, say I want to see details about one running process, freecell for example. On NT I’d right click the toolbar to get a selection window, then click on Task Manager, the click on the tab I need, then sort the list to find freecell.exe. Due to the limits of Task Manager, there no way to filter the results to just see freecell. With a Linux command line I’d just type **ps -ef | grep freecell** and there the answer is! ---
**Author:** ![Balthisar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/balthisar/32/2825_2.png) [@Balthisar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Balthisar)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2001, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/linux-no-command-line-interface-possible/72771/4 "2001-07-17T13:33:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MC \* > \*\*Has there been any OS that was fully, exclusively created to run as a GUI only, with no command-line interface at all? Could Linux be re-written this way? - MC \*\* Duh, the Macintosh, silly! There is _NO_ command line. Some people have written some, though. But they’re not needed. Well, up until but not including OS X, that is. OS X needs some work; I _routiney_ have to use the Unix command shell to do silly things that have no right being on a Macintosh. Sometimes I even have to login as {gasp} root! Debian Linux (6-ish or so) installs such that you don’t ever have to look at a command line. But even with its long development heritage (for the computer world) it’s still nowhere close to Mac OS X as far as insulation from the “underlying” OS. ---
**Author:** ![nickc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/47e85d/32.png) [@nickc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nickc)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2001, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/linux-no-command-line-interface-possible/72771/5 "2001-07-17T14:05:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MC \* > \*\* - - - As I’ve read it, computer OS writers create a command-line interface, and then write a GUI based on that. Has there been any OS that was fully, exclusively created to run as a GUI only, with no command-line interface at all? Could Linux be re-written this way? - MC \*\* Linux is not written with a command line interface. It never has been. An interface of some sort is normally required for the average user, but all Linux (the kernel) does is make it possible for you to use your computer in a sane manner. When many people see linux, they might see a command line; this could be bash, csh, etc, etc. If you start linux and then directly boot X Windows, I suppose it could be considered running a GUI-only operating system. In fact, X Windows is just a program, as is any user interface. ---
**Author:** ![nickc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/47e85d/32.png) [@nickc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nickc)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2001, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/linux-no-command-line-interface-possible/72771/6 "2001-07-17T14:14:44Z")
er, I also meant to say that Linux, libraries, bash, etc, is rightfully called GNU/Linux, as linux distributions normally(always?) come with the GNU utilities. For more info and some ranting from the guy responsible for GNU, take a look at [http://www.gnu.org](http://www.gnu.org). ---
**Author:** ![slortar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6bbea6/32.png) [@slortar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slortar)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2001, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/linux-no-command-line-interface-possible/72771/7 "2001-07-17T14:55:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Balthisar \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by MC \* > > \*\*Has there been any OS that was fully, exclusively created to run as a GUI only, with no command-line interface at all? Could Linux be re-written this way? - MC \*\* > > Duh, the Macintosh, silly! There is _NO_ command line. Some people have written some, though. But they’re not needed. > > Well, up until but not including OS X, that is. > > OS X needs some work; I _routiney_ have to use the Unix command shell to do silly things that have no right being on a Macintosh. Sometimes I even have to login as {gasp} root! > > Debian Linux (6-ish or so) installs such that you don’t ever have to look at a command line. But even with its long development heritage (for the computer world) it’s still nowhere close to Mac OS X as far as insulation from the “underlying” OS. > > \*\* I thought MacOS has had a hidden debugging command line prompt since System 6 or so? I’ve never had to use it, thank god, but I recalling running into references to it quite a bit. ---
**Author:** ![Chas.E](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e99b99/32.png) [@Chas.E](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chas.E)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2001, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/linux-no-command-line-interface-possible/72771/8 "2001-07-17T15:17:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by slortar \* > \*\*I thought MacOS has had a hidden debugging command line prompt since System 6 or so? I’ve never had to use it, thank god, but I recalling running into references to it quite a bit. \*\* Mac always had MacsBug, which was only accessible through the “programmer’s switch.” It was rarely used except for program debugging. If your program needed CLI intervention, it was broken. On a similar vein, Apple always had Applescript, which allowed you to run CLI-type programs. Applescript shows some interesting promise, now that it’s integrated with Unix on MacOS X. ---
**Author:** ![Balthisar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/balthisar/32/2825_2.png) [@Balthisar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Balthisar)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2001, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/linux-no-command-line-interface-possible/72771/9 "2001-07-17T22:25:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Chas.E \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by slortar \* > > \*\*I thought MacOS has had a hidden debugging command line prompt since System 6 or so? I’ve never had to use it, thank god, but I recalling running into references to it quite a bit. \*\* > > Mac always had MacsBug, which was only accessible through the “programmer’s switch.” It was rarely used except for program debugging. If your program needed CLI intervention, it was broken. > On a similar vein, Apple always had Applescript, which allowed you to run CLI-type programs. Applescript shows some interesting promise, now that it’s integrated with Unix on MacOS X. \*\* Yeah, but Macsbug’a not really a CLI… it’s really just a CPU monitor with some extra features. It gives you access to the CPU itself. Also, access to memory. Since ROM is memory, you could theoretically access ROM routines, but those are all Pascal toolbox calls – nothing you could realistically access from a monitor program. And the MacOS _certainly_ wasn’t designed around Macsbug nor a command line. Also, Apple’s not ALWAYS had Applescript. Before MultiFinder, there was really no reason to have AppleScript, since the OS wouldn’t multi-task! Plus, AppleScript isn’t the same as a command line. It’s designed for inter-application communication (mostly), and most of its functionality is done via applications that support AppleScript, or built-in AppleScript extensions that are programs that know how to talk to the OS. In a way, you _could_ equate it with Visual Basic (using DDE or COM) on Windows. If anyone remembers REXX, it’s along the same lines.