It's a centralised network. They need to make maximum profit and don't need to care about users, because they won't leave whatever nasty thing happens. Being on there encourages friends and family to stay and suffer too. And keeps people off of decentralized networks.
I'm surprised people stay on Facebook, then grizzle about how bad they've helped it become.
People speak many different languages around the world. Gimp doesn't have a bad connotation outside small and sad group of people. A subset of English speakers only. People like that should not dictate what the rest of us, outside their bubble, do.
Yes. For me, creating car body shells, FreeCAD doesn't come close. It seems most FOSS programmers don't need complex shape surfacing to scratch an itch, so that is a long way off. For now.
As long as it's easy to setup, anything would be good. After many years of asking, nobody has been able to suggest anything.
GUIs can have just as many options. Sure there are programs with poor UX. Choose a good one. There are also many GUIs with no CLI alternative, or only a poor UX alternative. As the GUIs guide the user, small changes are understood right away. GUIs remember last settings all the time. Great for reuse. If you have to write a command down, for GUIs it need not be perfect. For CLI one letter wrong and it fails. Using man commands is yet another command to learn and does not work with all CLI commands. It is possible to automate GUI commands.
And even if there was some benefit to a CLI, the entire UX is so poor you can understand why most people prefer GUIs. It's the dominant way for good reason. And why most CLI users use a web browser and GUI email client.
Terrible usability will be the right term, if someone suggests applying one type of UI to an inappropriate situation/user/task. Such suggestions sadly seem to happen a lot in the Linux space. And saying CLI is easier is a sweeping proclamation. Whereas I've avoided making sweeping proclamations, repeatedly describing the many cases where CLI is poor. Usability analysis needs to know about the user and the situation. It's not one size fits all.
I've used various command line systems a lot in the past.
I'm saying it's more productive for many to invest in extending learning their home environment than learning a completely unfamiliar and inappropriate environment.
GUIs, even the Registry Editor, are familiar territory for a lot of users. Give them a blank screen cli, and there is no hint of what to do next. There are good reasons why the vast majority clearly prefer GUIs.
"It is not strange"
The terminal is nothing like familiar GUIs people use daily. To most, the terminal is strange and full of opportunities to mess up.
"so much faster by copy/paste"
It's not faster when the user needs to go to a separate application first to find the instructions, then find the text to copy. And also search for how to use the terminal, and that it might be called Konsole confusingly. And also to understand if the command did anything. Does it print anything that you need to read? Should you close the terminal afterwards? Should you trust copy pasting from Internet strangers? All this is missing from online help, where they assume people have used the command line before.
Such a GUI app could be launched from Dolphin by right-clicking the share, and selecting a new option "Mount" that would help discoverability. A standalone app would need:
You really have to put yourself in the position of a non IT user. They see a blank window with a blinking cursor. No hint at what to do. You know they have already chosen GUI systems. And for good reason. It's over. The numbers are clear. Talk to usability insiders. As you have clearly shown you are not one. Many Linux devs have worked hard to carefully create desktop environments and Apps like Digikam, all GUI based. To give non IT users a chance to use Linux. And make it an inclusive and learnable OS. They hate it when usability outsiders scare people off by telling them to leave their familiar world into a strange and difficult place.
In Dolphin, yes it's very easy to access the share. Ideally, DigiKam would work the same way. As do apps in Windows. This is why I say mounting shouldn't be necessary. Most computer users are not familiar with such methods. I guess you are not interested in usability. Don't mix what you find easy and what other, non IT users will find easy. And they will have to learn every step that you already know. The command line fails hugely on usability, learnability and familiarity. As such other OSs don't expect people to use it. And as such have the majority market share.
Yes, if direct access is not possible, there should be an easy GUI way to mount a share. I'd happily help with the UX.
It is hard if you don't know you need to mount the share. How long should people be searching the web for, looking to access the share directly like some apps can do, when they have never even heard of the concept of mounting a share. Telling non IT people to use some command line or other nerdy hack, with magic words that fail if one single letter is wrong, to do what shouldn't even be necessary in the first place, is typical gatekeepery that stops so many from using Linux. You might not realise what a huge barrier, such broken usability is, for non IT people. Avoid being part of that barrier.
Oh great! The planet has already got a carbon dioxide atmosphere. So we can't go there and burn stuff to mess it up like web did to the last one.