That's generally a good thing. If they don't know their way around the system then you probably don't want them installing software.

They're competent enough to install software, they just don't explore a lot in the UI. If they can't figure out how to do something with what's in front of them, they have a tendency to assume it can't be done. In other words, if they click on an app and the only options are "Move to Trash" and "Cancel", they're going to assume that their only options are moving the app to the trash or cancelling

Which is the intended goal as they will never install malware.

And no open source software either unless the authors cough up the apple tax.

Not too relevant here, but I think the main thing keeping regular people from installing open source software is that most OSS is an unpolished usability nightmare compared to commercial counterparts.

Krita is an unpolished usability nightmare compared to commercial counterparts? Why does a project like Krita have to pay apple tax?

Why does it even matter if it's a usability nightmare if the user wants it they should be able to install it if it's open source.

I've never used Krita, it looks nice though and I like seeing well polished OSS, but a specific example says nothing about the general trend.

> Why does it even matter if it's a usability nightmare if the user wants it they should be able to install it if it's open source

Sure. And users are able to install it... it's just a little hidden. My point is if you can't even figure that out then you probably can't figure out most OSS either. Most.

There is plenty more OSS software that has polished and usable UI design. Possibly software you'd not think of as OSS to begin with.

Being so dismissive of the user's wants is just Apple fanboyism.

That OSS usually has poor usability is like the most common criticism ever. And could you explain how specifically am I dismissing users' wants? I'm just saying an extra 5 clicks is not that big of a barrier, when people in this thread are throwing phrases like "incredibly painful" around.

You're confusing usability with visual polish.

I will agree that many OSS desktop applications don't have the most modern UI and are not as visually appealing as some paid-for apps. But in terms of usability, "beautiful" apps can be just as if not more frustrating than dated-looking ones.

There's especially often a lazy route to perceived usability that consists in just not providing many features. Of course, it's easy to create an easy to use application if it doesn't do all that much (like $20 mail clients that can't even do GPG - no thanks, I'll switch back to ugly, but perfectly usable Thunderbird).

I mean why let anybody run any software at all? After all, it’s only their hardware that they paid thousands of dollars for. Even the OS itself can have security vulnerabilities. Best if we just ban software, it’s too dangerous.

The less agency people have, and the less expertise is teached to them and expected of them, the less capable and the more exploitable they become.

If I look at my parents they are well past the point of developing any expertise. Everything is about protecting them now.