People hate software that they're forced to use. Professionals are better at tolerating crapware, because there's usually sunk cost fallacy involved.

Well actually, I use FreeBSD as my daily driver (on a used ThinkPad I bought for 300 euros), and I love it. :D

</painfully earnest nerd>

okay, now you're going to tell me that FreeBSD is in the "software nobody uses" category isn't it?

Disguising it as an "observation" is even more ridiculous.

Nah, I'm good. Believe what you want to believe my friend.

Irelevant.

Firstly, it's a tool, not a social media platform designed to sell ads and farm clicks, it needs to be utilitarian and that's it, like a power drill or a pickup truck, not look pretty since they're not targeting consumers but solving a niche set of engineering problems.

Secondly, the engineers are not the ones paying for that software so their individual tolerance is irelevant since their company pays for the tools and for their tolerance to those tools, being part of the job description and the pay.

Unless you run your own business , you're not gonna turn down lucrative employment because on site they provide BOSCH tools and GM trucks while you personally prefer the UX of Makita and Toyota. If those tools' UX slows down the process and makes the project take longer it's not my problem, my job is to clock in at 9 and clock out at 5, that's it, it's the company's problem to provide the best possible tools for the job, if they can.

> I think engineers using software should not be seen as an endorsement.

Where can I find one of those jobs?

But since you asked, Google is famous for low workloads. Or Microsoft. Or any other old and large slow moving company with lots of money, like IBM, Intel, SAP, ASML, Airbus, DHL, Siemens, manufacturing, aerospace, big pharma, transportation, etc. No bootstrapped "agile" start-ups and scale-ups, or failing companies that need to compete in a race to the bottom.

Depends mostly on where you live though.

They may be locked in, which just forces things. Not an endorsement.

However, they may also be really productive with whatever it is. This could be an endorsement.

In CAD, as an example, there are often very productive interaction models that seem obtuse, or just bad to people learning the tools first time.

Often improving on first time ramp ups to competence nearly always impacts the pro user too.

Where it plays out this way, I have always thought the UI was good in that the pros can work at peak efficiency. It is hard to beat them.

Fact is the task complexity footprint is just large enough to make "good", as in simple, intuitive interfaces not possible.