"The core is always the user and what they need."

I was referring to this and the main thing users need, is software they can use to solve their problems. If they have to study IT to do so, or hire programmers first, then this would be primarily a new (and big) problem to them, before they even can start working on their problem.

Free software isn't about solving your problems, it's about solving mine and enabling you, and others, to solve yours, and theirs. It's about if I've been generous enough to give, anyone who takes can't undermine my generosity by not also sharing. You having a problem that isn't solved by what I've made available, or is bigger/different than the problem I was solving, isn't my problem to solve or even know about. If you want to make your problem mine to solve, you can hire me. Everyone has problems, some of those problems are exactly the same, some of them overlap, and some are completely disjoint. If we have the same problem and my software is useful to solve that problem, you are welcome to use it, but you may find out that the problem I set out to solve for me does not exactly overlap with your problem.

You certainly don’t need to study IT to use Linux.

Well, let's put it like this. I did study IT and even I struggle at times. Or quite often, if I want to do something new. And I absolutey would have no idea, how to do anything serious, without the terminal. But a terminal is programming. So yeah, even a newb can learn to paste some commands quite quickly - but troubleshooting even trivial things, gets you into highly technical stuff very quickly. Do you consider man pages to be written beginnerfriendly?

You know, simple examples of common use cases right on top? Not my experience. I experienced it as a system written by and for hackers. And everything else an afterthought at best. I remember my first real life linux hardcore enthusiasts: "I have to free myself from the GUI"

Well, I did, but the common people won't.

So your issue is that someone who solved their problem didn't solve it in a way that you want or expect? Why does your opinion about their problem matter at all? Why does it matter to the person who makes their solution available that the common people won't?

Using the terminal is not "programming". Non-programmers can use the terminal for many non-programming tasks. Imagemagick and netpbm-progs require no knowledge of programming to use, although it may require knowledge manipulating files and some graphical theory. The only difference from GIMP or Photoshop is that the UI/UX has a different efficiency metric (mainly because interactive image manipulation is more efficient when you are interacting visually). But the operations are just as discoverable: reading and navigating help text/man pages in the former (the man pages for Imagemagick and netpbm-progs are relatively decent), and reading and navigating menus and dialog boxes in the latter.

"The only difference from GIMP or Photoshop is that the UI/UX has a different efficiency metric (mainly because interactive image manipulation is more efficient when you are interacting visually). But the operations are just as discoverable"

I know. Which is why the year of the linux desktop was such a success.

"Why does it matter to the person who makes their solution available that the common people won't?"

They have all the right not to care, but it still is not helping the goal of being useful for normal people.

> They have all the right not to care, but it still is not helping the goal of being useful for normal people.

That isn't the goal. I don't know why you keep saying that.

I know it isn't for you, but it is for me. The question here is, how is it for GNU in general. I understood the original point in a way, that it is.

> I know it isn't for you, but it is for me.

Maybe, but your goal is irrelevant to the authors of the GPL.

> The question here is, how is it for GNU in general.

The goal for the FSF and their GPL is, and always was, freedom for the user of the software.

Ease-of-use was never an important consideration, much less a goal. This whole discussion from you in this thread is bizarre, TBH. You are projecting your goals onto the FSF's GPL, and judging it to be a failure based on your goals.

Your goals are irrelevant to them, just as their goals appear to be irrelevant to you.

You think troubleshooting on any other OS is less technical? Isn't my experience unless you count the OS refusing to give you information required to troubleshoot at all as user friendlyness.

Yes, I do think that. My father for example as a german electro engineer can use windows with ease and tries since years to establish Linux. It works enouhh for my mother for internet, as long as I come regulary to fix some update big. My father is a highly technical person, but no programmer. Also his english skills are very limited, so he does not really stand a chance in my opion with linux, despite him trying.