Sometimes I talk to friends who need to use the command line, but are intimidated by it. I never really feel like I have good advice (I’ve been using the command line for too long), and so I asked some people on Mastodon:
if you just stopped being scared of the command line in the last year or three — what helped you?
This list is still a bit shorter than I would like, but I’m posting it in the hopes that I can collect some more answers. There obviously isn’t one single thing that works for everyone – different people take different paths.
I think there are three parts to getting comfortable: reducing risks, motivation and resources. I’ll start with risks, then a couple of motivations and then list some resources.
I’d add ImageMagick for image manipulation and conversion to the list. I use it to optimize jpg’s which led me to learn more about bash scripting.
That’s a good article. From my observation, there are a few things:
- Necessity. I’m active in communities with people who don’t use the terminal until it’s an absolute necessity. Like people running unraid, docker, or whatever containerized server. Eventually they need to type commands.
- The prettiness. Yeah, I run oh-my-zsh. It’s nice having a setup pretty environment. Some people’s only experience might be opening up the powershell default display to run one command… And that is a bad experience.
- Niche commands/programs. Take ffmpeg as an example. It’s probably the most powerful media tool that exists, but has no official gui. And it’s expansive enough that no GUI really covers what it can do. There are a bunch of other things like this.
Edit: And yeah, git. I’ve never used a graphical client. Seen a handful in use and don’t like it.
You’ve never used a graphical git client?!
I’m comfortable on the command line but a decent git UI is a way better experience.
git diff is so basic using a GUI makes it far easier to compare changes.
Same for merge conflicts. I’m not sure you can even resolve them on the CLI?
Any form of rebase: I think I used the CLI to do an interactive rebase a few times in the early days but I’d never do so without a GUI now.
Managing branches: perhaps I’m a little too ott but I keep a lot of branches preserved locally, a GUI provides a decent tree structure for them whereas I assume on the command line I’d just get a long list.
Managing stashes: unless you just want to apply latest stash (which admittedly is almost always the case) then I’d much rather check what I’m applying through a GUI first.
There are some things I still use the CLI for though:
git remote add git remote set-url because I’m just too lazy to figure out how to do that in a GUI. It’s usually hidden away somewhere.
git push --force because every GUI makes it such an effort. C’mon! I know what I’m doing - it’s /probably/ not going to mess things up…
Same for merge conflicts. I’m not sure you can even resolve them on the CLI
How are they solved when using a GUI? When using cli, it simply tells auto-merging failed and you can open the conflicting files in a text editor and solve the conflicts, then add them and continue the merge.
Managing branches: perhaps I’m a little too ott but I keep a lot of branches preserved locally, a GUI provides a decent tree structure for them whereas I assume on the command line I’d just get a long list.
git log --graph --all --oneline
There’s also --pretty, but it uses a lot of screen space.
Managing stashes: unless you just want to apply latest stash (which admittedly is almost always the case) then I’d much rather check what I’m applying through a GUI first.
You can attach a message when stashing with -m.
And you can check them out by doing git checkout stash@{1} or similar.
I use git on the CLI exclusively. I almost never rebase, but otherwise get by with about 5-10 commands. One that will totally change your experience is git add -p
I also have my diff/mergetool configured to use kaleidoscope, but still do everything else in the CLI.
git add -p is great to know, but IMO one shouldn’t rely on it too much, because one should strive committing early and often (which eliminates the need for that command). Also using git add -p has the risk of accidentally not adding some code that actually belongs to the change you are trying to commit. That has happened to me sometimes in the past and only later do I see that the changes I commited are broken because I excluded some code that I thought didn’t belong to that feature.
-p –patch
Interactively choose hunks of patch between the index and the work tree and add them to the index. This gives the user a chance to review the difference before adding modified contents to the index.
This effectively runs add --interactive, but bypasses the initial command menu and directly jumps to the patch subcommand. See “Interactive mode” for details.
The documentation is entirely meaningless? What does it do?
I also exclusively use the git CLI. I have tried to use a graphical client and could never figure out what it was doing and what was going on. I probably picked it up so easily because when I learned git, I was already used to using a CLI version control client. At the time, I was working at a company that heavily used Perforce and had a custom wrapper around the p4 cli that injected a bunch of custom configuration.
To be fair, I like to use VSCode for resolving merge conflicts, because it is easy to see the deviations and apply/edit as needed. Still, I use the CLI for everything else, including commiting that merge. Plus the gh cli client when I’m using github as I can create a repo or push a repo with zero effort.
It is possible to resolve conflicts through any text editor, but not an amazing experience.
