Not everything actually requires a GUI, obviously. But anything that requires configuration, especially for controlling a hardware device, should have a fully functional GUI. I know Linux is all about being in control, and users should not be afraid to use the command line, but if you have to learn another bespoke command syntax and the location and structure of the related configuration files just to get something basic to work then the developer has frankly half arsed it. Developers need to provide GUI's so that their software can be used by as many people as possible. GUI's use a common language that everyone understands (is something on or off, what numeric values are allowed, what do the options mean).
Every 12 to 18 months I make an effort to switch to Linux. Right now I'm using Archlinux, and it has been a successful trip so far, except my audio is screwed, I can't use my capture card at all, I had issues with my dual displays at the start, and the is no easy way to configure my AMD graphics card for over clocking or well anything basic at all.
I'm not looking for a windows clone, I love that I can choose different desktop environments and theme many of them to death. I even like the fact there are so many distros. Choice is a big part of linux, but there is clearly a desire to get more people moving away from Windows and until that path is 95% seamless most people just won't. Right now I think Linux is 75% to 85% seamless depending on the use case and distro but adding more GUI front ends would, imho, push that well into the 90% zone.
GUI is not a dirty word, it is what makes using a new OS possible for more people.
EDIT: Good conversation all. This is genuinely not intended to be a troll post, I just feel it is good to share experiences especially on the frustations that arise from move between OSes.
That's a valid opinion. It's yours. I disagree with your phrasing however. "GUI or GTFO" is not a nice way to present your case.
Also, it's mostly their free time. They get to choose what they do with it. If they decide writing a window effect would be cool in brain fuck, because why the hell not, it's completely up to them. They have no obligation to dedicate their free time to anything anybody else wants, so telling them off is at least disrespectful and at most a reason for them to stop.
The main developer of a popular rust framework (actix) was bullied enough that he quit and only when he quit did a bunch of people come out of the woodwork to support him - not before.
That situation was more complex - it started when a security researcher found a flaw in the codebase, raised that concern including a patch to fix it with no negative impact on performance only for the patch to get rejected for being too "boring". The bullying was a big step too far in that situation, but the maintainer of actix was not fully blameless by dismissing others honest work for no good reason.
It was his project, he can do whatever he likes with it. Rejecting "honest work" happens. I've had stuff reject with just a "sorry, no" even though it fixed a bug and "I don't understand it, therefore no".
A least he didn't pull a Linus on him and call him a "fucking idiot".
No, he just called the patch boring and not creative enough. Rejecting a security fix because it was boring does not shine a good light on your management of the project. The community had concerns about his approach to the problem and he chose to double down and not fix the issue. Then the community got out of hand.
His users have just as much right to complain about the issue and rejection of the patch as he has to reject the patches. Both sides handled this case poorly and it resulted in a sad outcome for everyone involved.
Hard work is often missed but rarely thanked. My heading was rather flapant. Hopefully my comment replies show I have more appropriation for Devs than the title suggests.