Tell me about how you chose a specific distro because you thought the name was cool or because it ships with some completely unknown utility no one uses.
my experience is that developers have largely made the Linux desktop experience so simple and stable that it works better than any windows machine I’ve used in the past decade
And their user needs blogs and posts from itsfoss, tecmint, ... to instruct them how to use their package manager, even need people to teach them how to type in the search bar(?).
When they switch to BSDs they always complain about "lack of documentation" because they are not willing to read pkg_add(1) nor pkg(8) and they want documentations to give them the ability to copy pkg_add php-8.3.3 php-mysqli-8.3.3 maria mariadb-client mariadb-server.
Doing something as simple as installing Steam is an absolute nightmare.
Because Linux advocators does not expect you to learn yourselves. In 4% of desktops how many Linux enthusiastic (I mean people that can read man pages and figure out the problem themselves and willing to do programming) there are? I don't think it reached 0.5%. And those people would soon switch to BSD, only some who believe in Linux decided to stay and write some great software that gained popularity (when writing this I'm thinking about sbctl but I have never used such software yet)
My point is that Linux devs don’t want a good user experience. They just assume that if you’re using Linux that you’re a software engineer and already know everything.
Wrong. Linux advocators hold your hand and teach you how to install some stuff on debian, how to install some stuff on ubuntu, fedora, how to install centos....
They already did things for you. You are not expected to do "harder" stuff (like programming, configure software with an editor).
But this statement is mostly correct for BSDs, except OpenBSD experience is better, since they have X by default (yeah, NetBSD have X but they don't have SSL certificates in base until 10.0 which is not released; FreeBSD needs you to install X yourselves.). But the general experience on BSDs are much better since their users are much willing to read man pages, unlike "Linux users".
Please explain to me how does this lead to Linux devs are mean
I don't think. But the Linux advocators are very mean so that their user can't figure out things themselves and always want people to help them.
and you need a CS degree to install a browser on Linux.
(the last paragraph is the main content)
YOU REALLY NEED!
If not, why there are so many post on bad quality websites like itsfoss, tecmint, etc.. and they have to taught you to use your package manager! They have to a bunch of apt-get install EEEEEEEEEEEEEdnf install AAAAAAAAAA and sudo .... .... ......
(while I want apk, doas, ...)
They expect Linux users to be a completely brainless person that will do everything they are told. Those Linux users learn things hardly with this background. So a CS degree is required.
Do you see that such Linux user always complain about "lack of documentation" when they "try" BSDs? Even FreeBSD (they have a forum)?? The documentation of programs and software doesn't hold your hand and teach you on installing something. This effectively render such Linux user unusable, hang.
This is why there will never be a “year of the Linux desktop”
They dislike this comment just because of this. This statement is correct.
Linux kernel's code quality is not comparable to any BSD's kernel. GNU userland is not as clean as BSD's userland so Chimera Linux existed.
because it’s developers insist on doing everything “the hard way”
true, true
I'm so lucky that WINE and virtualbox is so hard on "newbie distros" that I would never use windows application on linux.
When I switch to BSD I always read man pages and find the docs to resolve my problems. Never did that on Linux.
In an ideal OS you never have to learn to do things the hard way because the easy way works just as well without starting a new career in Linux programming.
Do you think FreeBSD and OpenBSD already met this requirement :)?
Years ago some Linux howtos or Linux distributions during their installation recommended to have several different partitions (I believe some of the BDSs like OpenBSD still offer such an option during installation)
There are advantages of having multiple partitions for multiple mount points.
OpenBSD can do partitioning for you, and it is not recommended to use a huge single root partition. If you can't do partitioning, use the default layout.
One advantage of that for /home is that you can have different mount options like noexec for preventing the execution of files inside your home directory which can be a good security measure.
If you never do development.
Anyone just having / and /home in separate partition are actually windows users, or not sysadmin.
Alpine Linux: musl, minimal, fast
OpenBSD: correctness, simplicity, easy to use