1) So your response to what you believe is atrocious is to… do the exact same thing without making your tone evident. That's genuinely funny to me.
2) It's also funny that you jumped the gun a little bit with the "I don't have to use the terminal because I can do file transfers", given that you respond to the rest of my comment further down.
3) You expressed annoyance with having to use the terminal, in particular because of perceived safety problems. I proposed ways for you to limit your use of it. Though, if you just want a safety net, many flavors exist. See earlier suggestions.
4) I actually have a pretty good idea of what's involved to set up that kind of stuff on common distros, and no, the process shouldn't involve any commands that would lead to catastrophe if typoed as you did above. Either way, you're missing the point. See the above point.
5) Finally we get to a more rounded statement from you, ignoring the sarcastic bit. I appreciate that, I really do. That said, I'm getting the impression that you're writing your reply to my post as you're reading it, because that's the second (and later, third) time you've said something I addressed later in my post.
6) Believe it or not, I would defend Windows if an application broke in the way you described. I personally dislike the operating system, but when an application breaks, the operating system is (barring certain special circumstances, which this does not appear to be) one of the last things to consider as the source of the bug.
7) Your professor is irrelevant in this discussion. Continuing to focus on the formatting of these posts — which you seem perfectly capable of reading — suggests that you made the point just to have something extra to attack. Hence, pettiness.
8) I can't help but think you're deliberately being obtuse wrt. what citation was expected from you. I wasn't doubting that chmod +R ??? /
will break your system (it absolutely will). Nor have I expressed doubt that you ran that command (though I'm still fascinated that you managed to make the typo you described above).
9) There are legitimate criticisms to be leveled against components of the GNU/Linux ecosystem. But as I have said, you appear to be assigning blame prematurely. So, for a relevant definition of "certain errors", actually I do have reason to say it's a mistake.
10) Ranting and being both fair and constructive in your feedback are not mutually exclusive by any stretch of the imagination. I was hoping you'd hold yourself to that standard. All well.
11) Not that you managed to establish that my points were flat out wrong, but either way I could have been nicer. That's true. Mind you, I find it somewhat difficult to be sympathetic here, given your argumentation history and that this rant had been you asserting that a tool sucks, prompted by you making a careless mistake with that tool.
Finally, I'd like to respond to this bit separately:
|This isn't the kind of mistake you own up to and learn from. There's nothing to learn. There's no knowledge you can gain that can stop you from making a typo|
Except… there is plenty to learn here, including but not limited to how to avoid such typos causing problems in the future (whether with chmod specifically or with any command run via sudo). There's a lot that can be read into your non-acknowledgement of them, but I'll avoid conjecture in this case, at this time.
P.S. - Some people seem unsure about why the command would lead to problems beyond simply throwing the installation's security in the trash. The main reason why is that chmod 775
may clear the setuid, setgid, and sticky bits on files. In particular, sudo relies on being owned by root and having the setuid bit set on it; without it, it doesn't have the permissions necessary to run correctly.