Honestly, I don't get this argument. I set a Linux installation up once, configure it how I like it, which takes a day or two in total, then I'm set for a few years. The administration on my system consists of running "pacman -Syu" every month or so then rebooting the system. So that's what, ~40 hours (high estimate at 1 hour per update to account for Murphy's Law + two 8 hour days) worth of work for having a streamlined workflow for 3 years. By making the system more efficient and tailored to my needs, I save much more time by not having to do repetitive things. It's that whole deal about working smarter, not harder; or thinking about the long, not short term.

I suppose that the argument makes sense from the perspective of the initial time investment to get over the learning curve, which, admittedly, is huge, but then there are real benefits to understanding the system that come with it. The learning curves of English and Math are even bigger but we don't complain about those since they let us perform essential tasks - just like computers do. Why the difference in approach?

Going off on a tangent - personally, I think that it's important to understand any system that one works with, whether it's a computer, one's own body and mind, a bicycle, society, family or a particle accelerator. I certainly don't fault anyone for not wanting to do the same but the benefits to truly understanding the world around us are huge.