• panda_abyss@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    I think the issue is Linux users think user friendly means 100% freedom to adjust and configure as desired (the system is friendly to users), and most other people think user friendly means a single obvious green path to getting things done.

    These are not strictly incompatible, they’re just difficult to balance.

    • Jumuta@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      I think KDE does it well? “simple by default, powerful when needed” works a charm on their applications

      • BCsven@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        KDE was a nightmare for my wife since it has the configuration right in the desktop bars and dialogs. Misclicks and drags meant she was making changes she didn’t want to. GNOME was a better choice, 100% simple and no surprises.

        • MotoAsh@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          That’s stupid. We do not design cars such that it’s impossible to crash if someone starts yanking on the wheel randomly.

          Expecting an OS to do as much is … just beyond pathetic.

          • BCsven@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            Except GNOME did exactly that. Sh can’t accidentally alter anything. Some people just have a hard time with computers and expected UI. Ever tried watching a good grampa deal with printer install and windows popups…you have to simplify things for less tch savvy people. Just like cars now have auto ebrake and lane assist