- Joined
- Jan 14, 2019
- Messages
- 13,858 (6.28/day)
- Location
- Midlands, UK
Processor | Various Intel and AMD CPUs |
---|---|
Motherboard | Micro-ATX and mini-ITX |
Cooling | Yes |
Memory | Overclocking is overrated |
Video Card(s) | Various Nvidia and AMD GPUs |
Storage | A lot |
Display(s) | Monitors and TVs |
Case | The smaller the better |
Audio Device(s) | Speakers and headphones |
Power Supply | 300 to 750 W, bronze to gold |
Mouse | Wireless |
Keyboard | Mechanic |
VR HMD | Not yet |
Software | Linux gaming master race |
If that's true, if system admins with extensive CLI knowledge are the only people that matter, if us, regular users don't count, then why does Windows still dominate the OS market?The only market that produces recognizable revenues for MS is the professional one. If taking a look to the private sector: Why should a developer invest a lot of additional time to develop GUI's that are not needed by the developers? They develop for free!
Exactly. For every system admin, there's a hundred regular employees who don't know shit and don't care too learn about CLI.That “professional”, or rather “enterprise”, market is not what you seem to think it is. It isn’t solely server and datacenters. It’s mostly volume licenses of their software for use on PCs that are still manned very much by ordinary users for whom the very idea of using CLI is anathema.
So asking why MS would pour resources into GUI development when most user-facing changes they have been announcing and pushing for almost two decades now were strictly changes to said GUI experience is a baffling take.
To clarify, I'm not against the existence of the Terminal. I'm against the idea that even a regular Joe, like myself, should learn it for basic OS functions that can be accessed through the GUI on other OSes.