Linux

While it wouldn't surprise me if some devs do assume that, I think you're mistaking apathy for malice in the general case. If there isn't a way to do something through a GUI that can be done through a terminal, it only implies that no one has decided that creating a GUI to do that was worth the effort.

It's not (necessarily) that devs want to block users from changing things, it's more of a case that no one has cared enough to put the time and effort in to enabling that GUI access. They either use the terminal or don't configure it ideally themselves because that configuration hasn't been important enough to take their attention.

Though I added that necessarily in brackets there because the Linux community is historically known for RTFM-style gatekeeping even for users who are trying to learn how to use the terminal, so I don't doubt that there are some terminal purists who would attempt to block attempts to add GUI configuration to depots they have influence over.

But just keep in mind it takes time and effort to make things. And, personally, as a dev (not a Linux dev but a software dev that uses Linux), I hate making GUIs. In my experience, unless you're willing to spend a long time positioning, sizing, and centering, they look like crap. Maybe there's a better framework for it these days, but I'd rather be writing algorithms and solving interesting problems than doing graphical design.

Right, after many years of Linux, I get the feeling that developers assume that if you don't like text-based input, you are not responsible enough to configure your own computer.

Many of us prefer the cli for administration. It's not "punishing" you - it's how things are more often done with Linux.

GUIs are good for the sole reason of presenting you the available options. A CLI is empty.