Missed a few things, my bad. > This. Is. The. Problem. Framing an end-user as a mentally deficient 'normie'. Why? What's the point and what's to be gained from

Missed a few things, my bad. > This. Is. The. Problem. Framing an end-user as a mentally deficient 'normie'. Why? What's the point and what's to be gained from this? Most end-users are, okay? If anything unusual happens at the computer they come running for the nearest nerd, poorly explain the problem, waste the nerd's time when it turns out it was simple, and the most important part, they don't learn from the experience. It also serves as a useful distinction between types of users. Normies browse the web, maybe use an e-mail client, some office software, maybe Steam or Zoom, etc. Power users want to explore the fullest capabilities of their computer. They're going to want different software and different experiences from the normies. Developers will want to explore how much they can do and control. That's another type of user with different needs and software preferences. Frankly, I'm not interested in talking about the needs of average users, because more average users will cause communities to believe their software doesn't need advanced features because there are greater numbers of simple users. Flooding Linux with normies won't make the software any better. It will create an Eternal September problem where you'll get loads of criticism and bug reports and problems, but almost nobody from that crowd will have the insight necessary to help devs decide on solutions. There really isn't any third option. Everyman software ends up toddler-fied, and bespoke software overloads the normies. Both groups cannot be served by the same software. I challenge you to find any piece of software that adequately serves both groups.