Wrong example, Manjaro is probably the less stables distro i've tried, and thoses issues seems to be common when you look at the forum
What I mean is that using the terminal isn't mandatory in Manjaro while Arch and Arch based distros all require it. So for that it's an excellent example.
As for stability it's a bit more stable than Arch itself from my experience but I still has issues. The most stable distro I have used was Pop OS, I didn't have a single issue there for like 3 years straight, I only switched because of a hardware change and Pop OS's Mesa version was unstable on the new hardware.
My central point is still that you will never in a million years get the average computer user to use a terminal.
you will never in a million years get the average computer user to use a terminal.
We used to back in the 20th century, when computer didn't had GUI
Yep as you said not everybody is made to use a computer, but everybody can learn how to with a minimum of will
Wait, so you think computer usage should go back to just large companies and a few niche enthusiasts?
Im just saying everybody can learn basic terminal commands, because on Linux you're on your own
Yes, they can but an average user never will and for Linux to get any adoption beyond the enthusiast space it also can't be a requirement.
Like it's fine if you believe Linux should never get mass adoption and be a niche desktop OS. All I'm saying is that I want Linux to get mass adoption and for that terminal usage can't be a requirement because your average computer user, who's most advanced computer use is installing an ad blocker on their browser, will never open a terminal.