In fact, nearly all the complaints I see in this and similar threads come down to people expecting macOS to behave like their previous OS did, and being surprised that it doesn't.
OS-X is surprising because there is a lot of marketing pretending that it is the most ergonomic when it is in fact the worst, and mostly it does not really improve other time.
That's very subjective. As a near 40-year user of Mac's, the consistency is quite remarkable. Mac OS 9 -> X was the biggest change, and even that was pretty consistent given just how different it actually was. After using Linux on and off for the last 20 or so years, I still prefer macOS when it comes to the crunch. It's not perfect, but to me at least, the best of a bad bunch.
Here's the thing; GNOME and KDE copied some bits from Mac OS, some bits from CDE/Motif, and a whole lot from Windows. The reason is obvious - familiarity and that IBM AT was largely the hardware people were installing these desktops on to. The "grandma test" (i.e. I taught my Gradma/Mum to use ${desktop}) is pointless. Instead, observe young children who have never seen a desktop computer interact with them. None of them fair well. IOS and to a very slight lesser degree, Adroid fair much better. All anecdotal, but do try it out - opens you're eye to just how bad the desktop is.
Real men prefer IRIX...
Nonsense default behavior, slow as heck, search barely works, keybindings are totally illogical.
It's totally unacceptable.