There is a negative feedback look here. With enough of that kind of "customization freaks only, casuals need not apply, enjoy your non-innovative proprietary shitware" talk, user bases stay small and niche, people get alienated, and don't contribute to or use free OSes.
It's perfectly reasonable to want to trade customizability for usability. Chasing people who think that away from free software helps nobody.
There's definitely some "customization freaks only" assholes on the internet too, but…
very very often, it seems like some people perceive that when a non-out-of-the-box OS just exists and people like using it just personally for themselves.
And I wasn't trying to paint everyone who wants to tinker with the same "gatekeeping" brush, sorry if I came off that way. GP equated proprietary software with "pay[ing] someone to lock you into their ecosystem" and "destroy[ing] innovation", and ended with
> If you lack the desire to learn how to configure your system, then you will probably not want to use a Free system. That's just how it is.
That's the sentiment I had trouble with. Not the existence of knobs (which should continue existing! Just with better tuning experience for casual users, and saner defaults).
I reject the idea that this is how it has to be. There is no reason Free Software has to be user-unfriendly.
But, like, let tinkerers tinker. Nobody said that this should be the way to go for everyone or that user-friendly unix does not exist. You brought the assumption that all Free Software is like that into a thread about a specific less-popular explicitly-not-desktop-oriented OS ;)