> "oh why do I have to use a standardized set of abstractions for configuration"

Linux config files absolutely do not follow one standardized convention.

Its pretty simple: GUI is more intuitive. I do not find them bizarre. Their diversity or bespokeness doesn't register as a hindrance to me. The options are visible all at once, or are a couple of clicks away. Contrast this with the command line where I more or less have to memorize each application's interface or look online or browse the manual for answers.

GUI lets me use keyboard + mouse. CLI is keyboard only.

Regardless of any rationale, my experience is what it is. No amount of counterpoints are going to change what I've felt using CLIs.

>GUI is more intuitive.

I would completely disagree here, they're more aesthetic but not more intuitive or discoverable.

Compare tar with apple's camera app on the iphone for example: tar --help will tell you how to do everything in the app. Is there something equivalent that tells how to do manual focus in the camera app? (yes, it's supported that for years and no one knows how to do it because it won't tell you.)

Of all the examples you could have chosen you picked tar? The program with such an obtuse command interface it has its own xkcd comic?