Don&#x27;t confuse low-quality, buggy, and incomplete with technical users.  Yes, they are able to work around issues but crap is not what makes a technical workstation.  See CADT, <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.jwz.org&#x2F;doc&#x2F;cadt.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.jwz.org&#x2F;doc&#x2F;cadt.html</a><p>Ubuntu has arguably not succeeded at either, except by accident with Ubuntu Mate.  It still isn&#x27;t as cohesive and complete as Windows 2000 was, which was good for technical <i>and</i> general users alike.  SGIs were pretty good too.<p>I&#x27;ll give you some examples.  Since the early 90&#x27;s NT has supported custom gui themes, you can change colors in a theme in a few clicks.  It has had a gui service manager to administer service daemons, very easy to use. (Windows has actually gotten worse also!)<p>This is the correct level of abstraction for a workstation.  The two choices given today between broken&#x2F;absent and crippled&#x2F;too-difficult are no choice at all.<p>These things still don&#x27;t exist under free desktops decades later!  Or they may have existed for a few years until the next CADT wave broke them.<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;guidebookgallery.org&#x2F;screenshots&#x2F;winnt351" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;guidebookgallery.org&#x2F;screenshots&#x2F;winnt351</a>