Do you hate the Command Line but want to learn GNU/Linux? This new distro may be for you!

forester

forester

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2022
Messages
544
Reaction score
320
Credits
3,829
MassOS touts itself as "completely independent and not based on any existing GNU/Linux distribution" (i.e. like mint is tied to ubuntu). It therefore has no repositories of its own and does not use any exiting command line package management system.

This is good news for those LO members who refuse to learn and use the console/terminal/CLI -- there is now a Linux distro that gives one an excuse NOT TO! Read on with the attachments . . .
 

Attachments

  • MassOS_2022_intr01_1026x809.jpg
    MassOS_2022_intr01_1026x809.jpg
    157.4 KB · Views: 384
  • MassOS_2022_intr02_1026x577.jpg
    MassOS_2022_intr02_1026x577.jpg
    131.4 KB · Views: 354
  • MassOS_2022_intr03_1026x577.jpg
    MassOS_2022_intr03_1026x577.jpg
    106.5 KB · Views: 303
  • MassOS_2022_intr04_1026x785.jpg
    MassOS_2022_intr04_1026x785.jpg
    160.7 KB · Views: 330


Many distros can be used without having to use a terminal, at least not that often and certainly not for trivial, everyday-regular, common tasks, such as updating the system, installing/removing pkgs, and so on. That being said, there may come a time when an issue arises and the only available way to effectively troubleshoot and fix is by using a terminal(and yes, even in MassOS), so ... Besides, you don't have to become the next "terminal guru", just learning a few basic commands will make your computing life way easier ... No terminal, no fun. :)
 
What kinda heathen doesn't like the terminal?!?

I've got two open at all times - sometimes more.
 
I don't know how to use the terminal, I just copy and paste commands from the internet and usually I get the job done, I don't hate it
 
I like two terminals, the best for me are London Gatwick, and Hippocrates [Kos, Greece]:p

I don't mind terminal or Gui as long as I get the work done
 
Terminal Velocity said:
I just copy and paste commands from the internet and usually I get the job done,
Click to expand...

That's generally considered a bad idea. You should know what every command does before you enter it into your terminal. Many commands can be quite harmful - and people can screw with you.

See for more information:

www.wizer-training.com

How To Get Hacked By Accidentally Copy Pasting

This is why you should NEVER copy paste commands directly into your terminal. Ask any developer or Admin if they have ever copied a command line or code snippet from the web. T
www.wizer-training.com www.wizer-training.com

(It's seriously a bad, bad idea.)

For example, it may be a 'harmless' fork bomb:

Fork bomb - Malware Wiki

malwiki.org malwiki.org

Or, it could be straight malware/exploit or remove files...
 
KGIII said:
That's generally considered a bad idea. You should know what every command does before you enter it into your terminal. Many commands can be quite harmful - and people can screw with you.

See for more information:

www.wizer-training.com

How To Get Hacked By Accidentally Copy Pasting

This is why you should NEVER copy paste commands directly into your terminal. Ask any developer or Admin if they have ever copied a command line or code snippet from the web. T
www.wizer-training.com www.wizer-training.com

(It's seriously a bad, bad idea.)

For example, it may be a 'harmless' fork bomb:

Fork bomb - Malware Wiki

malwiki.org malwiki.org

Or, it could be straight malware/exploit or remove files...
Click to expand...
I'm aware that there are harmful commands, one source of commands is for example this forum... do you approve?
 
It's probably harmless if it's from a forum - as you have more eyes on it. If I see a harmful command, I'll edit the post to make it known that it's a risky command or even remove it. If it's a harmful command, someone here will notice and report it.

They also can't really mask the command with JavaScript like they do at the first link I provided. (The first link has some pretty neat code involved.) Also, a fork bomb is relatively harmless - it just freezes your device. But, there are many malicious commands and hiding them in Perl would be trivial for anyone good with it. (Obfuscated code is the phrase you'd want to look for if you want more information. There used to be an obfuscated code contest just for Perl, but I think they ended that a long time ago.)
 
Interesting uses flatpacks and snap packages. My take on it is if it encourages Linux adoption from people who want a simple accessible distro then that is a good thing. They can move on to something more advanced later.
 
Tolkem said:
Many distros can be used without having to use a terminal, at least not that often and certainly not for trivial, everyday-regular, common tasks, such as updating the system, installing/removing pkgs, and so on. That being said, there may come a time when an issue arises and the only available way to effectively troubleshoot and fix is by using a terminal(and yes, even in MassOS), so ... Besides, you don't have to become the next "terminal guru", just learning a few basic commands will make your computing life way easier ... No terminal, no fun. :)
Click to expand...
I don't mind the terminal the more you use the better you get.

Sometimes using the terminal is better than the software updater or leastwise in Ubuntu where Snaps are concerned.

I copy and paste commands all of the time however I use known proven trusted sources to grab my terminal commands.

If I relied on my typing skills for entering commands into the terminal I'd create more problems than I'd solve. o_O

Terminal is powerful and fun learn from it and learn to use it.
 
Although @forester's title mentions "Do you hate the Command Line," I don't think the command line is really the issue. As @Adithyansm discovered, MassOS requires the terminal to install. It's also required to update the system (Method 1) and manage kernels. The real problem is the lack of repositories.

They offer two methods to upgrade their OS. Method 1 is a 30-minute-long process to upgrade a running system. It won't always work, and they tell you that. Method 2 (faster and safer) requires you to boot on a live USB in order to refresh an installed system. Both of these methods are non-starters for me to install it, but others may not be so put off by this.

I'm running MassOS on a live USB as I type this. It's nice. Very clean and fast, as described in the Distrowatch review provided by @Lord Boltar. Hopefully the developers come up with a better installer and upgrade path in the future as it does have a lot of potential. It makes a fine live USB just as it is. But the install and upgrade requirements do not seem very friendly to new Linux users.

massos.png



[UPDATE]
One other attribute came to mind: iso filesize. MassOS weighs in a bit on the heavier side versus some of its comparable peers. OpenBSD and Slax are not comparable in quality, but they do show a very minimal case example. TinyCore would be even smaller. On the other end of the scale, none can compare to the behemoth, Windows 10. :eek:

filesizes.png
 
Last edited:
I'm moving this to Other Distributions, where this is more appropriate.

Thanks for sharing, @forester :)

Chris Turner
wizardfromoz
 
@Old Tom Bombadil -- good enough review for me (rather one here than even DistroWatch)! Thanks for taking the time.

@Adithyansm, @Tolkem, @Bartman -- "no terminal no fun" -- agreed!
It's good to hear each individual's view on what direction new Linux distros will take.

The use of such distros as a "stepping stone" to more challenging distributions, from @darry1966, is insightful and I hope it hold true!

@KGIII and @Terminal Velocity -- copying and pasting is one way to start learning the Linux command line (I was guilty of it, myself, in the beginning) and it is reassuring safeguards (i.e. Moderators) exist.

@NorthWest -- irony is one of the spices of human LIfe (and in this thread, one of the main points)!

Thanks, everyone! My faith is Linux users is renewed.
 
forester said:
It's good to hear each individual's view on what direction new Linux distros will take.
Click to expand...

As far as I know... (which isn't much these days)
You can put a GUI frontend, on just about any modern distro of Linux.

but also...

You can run just about any modern version of Linux in CLI (console) mode only.

I myself keep a console window open about 99% of the time in my GUI (How's that for a conflict of interest :) )

This has been mentioned here before in other threads. But some of us work with Enterprise Linux
on Hundreds (Thousands if you count VMs) of servers in data centers. In some cases, hundreds of miles away.

Now while there are a few, that have GUIs on them (we run VNC clients). The vast majority of them never
have GUIs installed. GUI's (browsers in particular) are usually what takes up the most resources on your system.
Besides, can you image having 6,000 monitors and keyboards on all those systems?

Sometimes, ssh and the command line console just makes sense.

But for my home desktop systems.... It would hard to go without a GUI.

The first version of Linux I ever used back in 94, ( Slackware ) didn't have a GUI option for a long time.

As much as people hate Mickey$oft windows (myself included). Microsoft ran on MS/DOS for about
ten years before Windows started to catch on. I had a Mac back in those days, and all my Microsofty
friends were saying "Those mouse thingy's and buttons and windows will never catch on".

I suppose it's hard to imagine a MS/DOS only computer these days.
But even in Windows, it seems they just keep making the CLI more powerful. ( Powershell didn't exist all those years ago ).
 
"I suppose it's hard to imagine a MS/DOS only computer these days."

Maybe for some!
CS101, University of Idaho, 1989 (my one and only formal CS class) -- basement computer lab full of stations with CRTs -- we had a sheet of instructions and were looking at monitors with nothing but a blinking DOS prompt and the assignment in hand. It was a little intimidating at first, but we either learned or failed the class.
 
dos2unix said:
I suppose it's hard to imagine a MS/DOS only computer these days.
Click to expand...
Somewhere, I still have a full set of 8 32 bit dos discs and a full set of W3.1 which I used on my 286 [not that I have anything to run them on now] they are just keepsakes for my memories
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

Total: 396 (members: 1, guests: 395)

Latest posts

Top