And I argue it has more to with the fact that *nix applications are traditionally configured via static configuration files as opposed to interactive process.

The real benefit is that they are configured with text files, not a monolithic inscrutable system "registry."

This is about how the user interacts with the configuration process, not where the configuration variables are stored.

Indeed. For the built in installation process that Microsoft wishes everyone would use in Windows 10, it could be this simple:

- Open the Store - Search for "Name of App" - Click Install

Bonus, this works for GUI software managers in Linux distributions which use them. Unifying the process simplifies most instructions greatly. I think the simple existence of Linux package managers, and the push to use them by the community, helps tremendously with this perceived ease. The installation complexity is largely solved by the package repository maintainers.

On the flip side, software which is not distributed with the OS can have very complex installation requirements even with command line instructions. Sometimes it's as easy as:

- ./configure - make install

But more often than not, you need to manually hunt down dependencies, and if the system uses automake / cmake and requires you to satisfy conditions for a build, those can get hairy and cryptic fast. I've gotten better at it over the years, but I wouldn't call this process any easier than a step-by-step installation wizard in a GUI.

> But more often than not

Simply not true. More often than not you'll get static binaries. And if the software is supported by a commercial team, any dependencies on your supported platform are already tested and working.

I'd argue it's because it's a lot simpler to to explain than "start synaptic, got to the search box and type x, click the install button, etc".

On the other hand, on mobile platform it is perfectly accepted to say "install foo via app/play/whatever store", which is essentially the same process, isn't it?