I am bit n00bish when it comes to networking and server environments but I set up stuff and normally get it to work, somehow, as intended. Doing this we all, both Unix and Windows Admins, need to rely to a high degree on the Command prompt. We are dependant on this: http://mally.stanford.edu/~sr/computing/basic-unix.html and its corresponding commands in "Windows". And those aint even half of them. Still, we look for improvements in the user interface, we judge the interface, we complain or praise the interface, but we see no clear tendency for the OS Interface to actually begin to replace the prompt. Why is that? I know, a prompt is often faster, you type "md directory" and that is faster than right-clicking in the folder and selecting create directory. Provided you are "there" with the command prompt. Networking commands are often usually much faster with better result. So why is it essential to use a prompt and why does it not get replaced by an intuitive graphical interface? Why do we get more command interfaces in stead of fewer (Powershell)? What can we expect from the future OS development?
hm... who am i to comment.. i am no expert..but. @TheSkaffer, wish you were right. ever so slowly, just like gollum passed into mordor, things are changing.. we used to have a nice, controllable 16 bits bios.we could do things from dos.. no longer.. we now have got uefi, we can control the whole s**t with a mouse in a gui, lovely.. there used to be nothing wrong, with that bios, it was small, understandable, and controllable. it did what it is supposed to do. that is; do the POST, pass control to the os, AND GET THE HELL OUT!! now, we have a phoney apology for the bios that adds no features. it just adds room for restricions.and that room is being relentlessly used by m$ and oem manufacturers to restrict us.. i am on uefi now, and i do not like it one bit. grumph.. @R29k, that was 2003, that was.. now, the big boys are twisting our arms to do it in the cloud..where they can get at us. m$, google, what have you; birds of a feather, imho..
So a relevant statement might be: - some pay our os developers for compatibility - some pay our os developers for performance (thinking gamers/architects/graphic design mostly here) - some pay our os developers to look good and be "hawt" - some pay our os developers for new tools to achieve new things - what do you pay/reward your os developer to achieve?
Never! One important reason for this is - as you pointed out - networking. I find working on a Windows machine with an SSH/Unix-prompt to be extremely convenient, granting me access to the powerful Unix toolset without me having to leave the comfort of my Windows desktop. Thanks to Dropbox-syncing (or FTP) I'm working locally (Windows) and remotely (Unix) at the same time, on the same files! I believe the general idea is that the majority of users should not have to deal with advanced configuration tools, and as such, one can assume that the user of such tools is already familiar with using a command prompt. This way the development teams can create their tools quickly without having to involve UI designers (and all the extra testing that would require - increased development costs with questionable benefit). Command line tools also seems to scare the casual user, and may therefore prevent the user from tampering with settings that they do not understand. Command line tools also allows for easy automation! That being said, I see nothing wrong with creating GUI's to assist with using complex command line tools, but I do not think it is needed, and I would probably not use such GUI's myself.
What Calistoga said. + when adding all the command line options to a gui half your screen would be filled with checkboxes and textboxes for every switch. Right-click menus would have hundreds of entries. The gui would be full of options that user's don't understand and are potentially harmful if not used with care. A lot of those options are barely used so why adding them to a gui? For those <0% of users that need them and maybe use it once in month?