Making it more difficult to actually break the system is a good thing, insofar as it does not actually restrict the freedoms of the users who know what they are doing. I think the fix introduced by PopOS:

To prevent such incidents in the future, Pop!_OS patched the APT package manager. Now, POP!_OS won’t be able to enter “Yes, do as I Say”. Instead, they will have to add a special a file to enable it (if someone really wants to remove the packages).

is reasonable, because the user can override the protection if they really feel they need to (and know what they are doing, of course).

As a relatively new linux user, Linus is right about a lot of UX concerns and it’d be really nice if people were more receptive. It should be harder to brick your system in Linux, just have a default where you can’t and power users can easily disable that block, like with immutability

The command line method clearly warned, “You are about to do something potentially harmful. To continue type in the phrase ‘Yes, do as I say‘”.

But people often do not care about warnings. Linus Sebastian went ahead with it and ended up with a broken system that cannot be logged in graphically.

It’s almost as though reading warnings / error messages is helpful! Imagine that! Sure, it may take an extra minute of one’s time, but that’s just too much, man!

It is not too much to ask people to read something prefaced by a warning label. Don’t understand it? Ask for help!

Roads have warning signs, cars themselves come with a booklet explaining the check engine light and its meanings, microwaves come with warnings about putting metal inside, and cleaning supplies have tons of labels about potential hazards in case of misuse. If one can learn to understand different warnings for these, one can learn to understand computer warnings.