I don’t think there is some exceptional good CLI interfaces. If anything, you either notice the interface is bad or unconventional or it is cluttered, because it has lots of functionality. It also depends if it “should” fit into the Linux eco system (similar commandline system and logic) or is this tool used for any operating system. I have my own scripts as wrapper for some tools, so they are excluded from discussions here. Note I think the discussion is about commandline interfaces that operate non interactive (in other words no “live” TUIs or interactive editors), so no Vim or htop.

Tools like yt-dlp or awk or find or git are complex and overloaded with functionality, because it offers so much and has to offer all of that. Or the command works different, because of its nature of calling another command like parallel. Then there are commandlines that just deviates from the standard and bugs me a lot. One of the worst offenders to me is 7z from package extra/7zip in the Arch repositories. But it is not a standard GNU tool, therefore it does its own thing.

So in the end, I do not think there is an exceptional good CLI, only bad or complicated ones. As long as it follows Linux standards its good to go. Often the best Rust CLI tools have pretty good ones that could be listened as standouts, but none specific in particular.

But Hurd is too far behind and will probably never be a real alternative to Linux. Also the Linux Kernel is not what adopts the Age Verification, its the distribution. Therefore instead changing the Kernel, they just need to change on the distribution what they do not like. Or create the same distribution with Linux, they would create with GNU Hurd.

I feel like this comment was a sarcastic joke and people didn’t pick it up.^^ Especially after the Hurd line, this has to be a joke.

windows was getting so buggy and aggravating

Also Microsoft convinced the people that system updates are a bad thing.