Or is that more of a stereotype, and there are some (maybe more?) out there using some form of graphical interfaces/web dashboards/etc.?
It’s struck me as interesting how when you look up info about managing servers that they primarily go through command-line interfaces/terminals/etc. It’s made me wonder how much of that’s preference and how much of it’s an absence of graphical interfaces.
GUIs are very limiting. You’re only able to do what the designer wants you to be able to. By using the terminal it’s much simpler to do more complicated tasks (once you’ve gotten past the learning curve).
Also since so many servers are headless (no display outputs) they’ll be remotely logged into, meaning there’s only a terminal to interface with the machine.
This can be true. Part of the reason I ask is that as more data is visual in nature, it seems like it might make it more difficult to manage strictly via CLI, especially since metadata is likely to be lacking in description and even with a descriptive filename and details, it’s a picture/video for a reason.
I’m sure there are existing arrangements to handle that though, like web GUIs for any visual media review as needed.
Can you give me an example? Sure graphs are quick to spot spikes and such, but outside a webui like you mentioned servers also usually have warning triggers, you know what’s better than staring at a graph looking for a spike? Getting paged once a spike happens with information on possible causes and the state of the server. That’s very difficult to setup using GUIs, but almost trivial to do if your okay with CLIs.
It’s more on the hobbyist end of things, but as an example I was thinking like if you had a server you’re using to back up or store photos on, trying to parse it strictly via CLI doesn’t seem like it’d be terribly useful.
You’d also want to view the images directly, I’d think, but I’m guessing in that situation you’d just use whatever web UI the software you’re using might provide.
