Not everything actually requires a GUI, obviously. But anything that requires configuration, especially for controlling a hardware device, should have a fully functional GUI. I know Linux is all about being in control, and users should not be afraid to use the command line, but if you have to learn another bespoke command syntax and the location and structure of the related configuration files just to get something basic to work then the developer has frankly half arsed it. Developers need to provide GUI's so that their software can be used by as many people as possible. GUI's use a common language that everyone understands (is something on or off, what numeric values are allowed, what do the options mean).
Every 12 to 18 months I make an effort to switch to Linux. Right now I'm using Archlinux, and it has been a successful trip so far, except my audio is screwed, I can't use my capture card at all, I had issues with my dual displays at the start, and the is no easy way to configure my AMD graphics card for over clocking or well anything basic at all.
I'm not looking for a windows clone, I love that I can choose different desktop environments and theme many of them to death. I even like the fact there are so many distros. Choice is a big part of linux, but there is clearly a desire to get more people moving away from Windows and until that path is 95% seamless most people just won't. Right now I think Linux is 75% to 85% seamless depending on the use case and distro but adding more GUI front ends would, imho, push that well into the 90% zone.
GUI is not a dirty word, it is what makes using a new OS possible for more people.
EDIT: Good conversation all. This is genuinely not intended to be a troll post, I just feel it is good to share experiences especially on the frustations that arise from move between OSes.
Believing that GUI is a common language is funny.
CLI is literally a common language as long as devs follow the actual rules. GUI? No. There are no rules for where configuration is. File->Settings? Maybe. Or maybe it's under Edit. Or maybe it's behind a gear symbol. You point out you like the variety of desktop environments but ignore that it's not easy to get something to look great in everything. It's like back in the day trying to get a website to look nice. It was either basic HTML that looked good in IE and Netscape (I know there were others, but let's be real) or you had something fancy that only worked in IE. So yeah, folks spend their valuable time on providing functionality instead of looking pretty. Sorry not sorry? Until more money goes towards those projects, you're going to be missing unnecessary bells and whistles. There's a reason Mac looks pretty. Money.
I will take new features, performance improvements, and bug fixes over adding a GUI every day of the week.
Devil's advocate:
ffmpegis not common language, it's an eldritch incantation beyond human comprehension.common as in Switches are binary, so thats easy. Error checked fields are also easy to work with. Drop down lists, radio buttons, all pretty standard stuff. Yes there is some variety but there is little doubt that switching something will do what the label says, where as a command line and conf file require a lot more work, espeically if you want to make frequent changes to those settings.
I understand the people give their time to the Linux project without charge, and it is a little cheeky to make demands, but there are some obvious basic gaps that need addressing. Rather than focusing on fancy themes, maybe some more configuration management stuff would be useful?
Those items you mention have standards but aren't required. Some people use a flip that goes back and forth where it just changes color. Is it on when it's color x or color y? Dunno. Finding the settings is also the big problem. VSCode takes an interesting approach to it as a GUI but it's hardly ideal. GUIs do not have written constraints that CLI does. I've seen radio buttons where it says on/off but the description doesn't actually make it clear of on means it's active or off means it is. I've seen the descriptions change based on it being toggled and the description matching what would happen if you click again.
GUIs are not standardized and again, sometimes it's simply just getting them to display properly in every environment. It's not simple.
It's been fine for decades. Just because people are getting dumber with complex computer systems doesn't mean we should put in extra effort and ignore more worthwhile work. The only correct answer here is if people making the demands want to go ahead and do it themselves. They're the ones who want it so badly.
I don't see this as a serious issue. It's absolutely not a necessity. If a developer wants to do it, they will. If not, demanding they're failing to do something is a bit entitled. The tone of this whole post was entitled. Especially considering the distro chosen. CLI is by far superior to GUI. Always has been. Finding information on configuration is always easier and faster on CLI than trying to find it in a GUI unless it's the most mundane of applications in which case both are extremely easy. Telling somehow how to do something is insanely easier with CLI than taking screenshots or describing where you need to click. GUIs are a handicap for folks who can't figure out the simplicity of CLI. GUI is a nice to have for some things but rarely a better option overall.