It's because of the way things are structured right now.
It's because of the way things are structured right now.
When relocating your girlfriend to Pop OS, the GUI app store supports flatpak and .deb formats based on the application. Flatpak generally performs well for regular software, though I've encountered problems with certain power users' tools that require higher system access than it provides by default. Additionally, on Pop OS, apps installed via apt in the terminal or through the app store can be updated easily with a single click in the app store—similar to Android’s update process (update 1 app or all apps). This makes the platform quite user-friendly for non-technical users.
The issue with the Snap Store is that many snaps come from third parties who aren’t actively maintained. When you install a distribution, the store appears helpful for major apps like Firefox or VLC, but once you move to less popular items, it shows up there too. You quickly realize the store isn’t reliable, and you notice that some snap updates have been missing for years—sometimes even from users who posted them long ago without any recent support.
I believe the perspective you’re presenting isn’t entirely clear. Flexibility and compatibility are key highlights of advanced computing (and that’s one aspect of ease of use), but those usually take a back seat compared to core technical strengths—what most people mean by user friendliness is the simplicity of interacting with a system like Windows or similar commercial software. That said, no one denies the value of a smooth GUI experience. However, it’s far less crucial than solid technical performance (which I personally wouldn’t prioritize over functionality).
Consider snaps: they appear intuitive on paper, but real-world issues can trap you in tricky spots if they’re poorly built or neglected. A system controlled by a less user-friendly package manager might actually be easier to maintain when problems arise. If something goes wrong, you’re left with limited options—often just a repair shop.
With open-source packages via AUR, fixing issues is usually straightforward for those who know how. It’s like comparing Windows to a Tesla: it aims for ease of use, but if it breaks, you’re stuck at a specialized service. Linux distributions, on the other hand, are built to be adaptable—like a Jeep that can handle rough terrain, extra fuel tanks, or mounted weapons. The goal is flexibility in changing conditions, not perfect smoothness on ideal paths.
In short, you might find Linux less appealing if you need it to work in harsh environments, but its strength lies in resilience and self-repair. My stance is to prioritize functionality over polished interfaces, especially when the environment demands it. Always anticipate challenges rather than chasing a flawless experience on perfect surfaces.