I think denying beginners the GUI is particularly cruel. The command line is much more of an abstraction in this case, I think! - gitk displays the actual tree of this graph that git manipulates, but the command line just prints text ;) It's especially illuminating (or I found it so, anyway) to keep gitk --all open as you do merges, rebases, pushes, fetches, etc., refreshing the display after each operation - it makes it very clear what's actually happening. I found git a bit of a mystery until I realised I could see what it was doing this way, and suddenly everything became clear.
Or maybe that's just me. I don't claim to be the sharpest tool in the box.
But anyway, you need have no fear that people won't get forced into using the command line eventually, just because they like git gui. Any time you want to do anything remotely complicated, you need to drop out of git gui and hit the command line. gitk, for all its ability to display the history in a useful format, is similarly limited (or designed for a specific purpose, if you prefer).
I really didn't get on with GitX, but I don't remember it being a great deal more than git gui and gitk, in the same app, with a fancy OS X-looking interface. So the same would probably apply.
Or maybe that's just me. I don't claim to be the sharpest tool in the box.
But anyway, you need have no fear that people won't get forced into using the command line eventually, just because they like git gui. Any time you want to do anything remotely complicated, you need to drop out of git gui and hit the command line. gitk, for all its ability to display the history in a useful format, is similarly limited (or designed for a specific purpose, if you prefer).
I really didn't get on with GitX, but I don't remember it being a great deal more than git gui and gitk, in the same app, with a fancy OS X-looking interface. So the same would probably apply.