I am going to make a claim that may sound a bit odd to you since it does not reflect your experiences: installing, updating, and removing software is much more

I am going to make a claim that may sound a bit odd to you since it does not reflect your experiences: installing, updating, and removing software is much more user friendly under Linux. Almost every Linux program I use is available through a package manager. Installing, updating, and removing the software can be done through a graphical package manager that resembles the Windows Store. In an apples-to-apples comparison, I would claim the graphical package manager is more user friendly since it is focuses upon managing software rather than marketing software, but I can appreciate that opinions will differ. In the case of Linux, most software is available through the package manager. In the case of Windows, a significant portion of software has to be obtained separately. The typical case involves finding the vendor website, downloading the software, then running a multi-step installer. If the software doesn't seek out and install its own updates, the process of updating software is the same. Removal of the software is usually similar to using a package manager under Linux, but there are cases where dependencies must be sought out and removed manually (e.g. Visual Studio). Modern Linux package managers handle dependency removal automatically. Then there are the still relatively common outliers. Many Windows programs are distributed as zipped files that must be installed manually. Usually this is a case of extracting the files, yet you have to read the instructions to be sure. There are also going to be the uncommon outliers, with installation processes that resemble that of Radarr. (It happens, though I have only seen it with development tools.) In my experience, the software management frustrations under Linux come from a limited number of outliers. Ironically, those outliers all use installers that resemble their Windows counterparts.