In this case, both are good examples of absolutely lobotomizing functionality for something that is called a GUI in name only.
Many years ago, a colleague gave a presentation. It was about an extremely complicated system (also an extremely powerful and efficient and fast system), which was an overwhelming success in its marketplace. Except that configuring, optimizing and maintaining it was quite difficult. A lot of that was because it is a complex system, built to handle many different workloads, on systems ranging from laptops to the largest computers in the world (including computers that are so large that their existence is a secret). It was also an expensive system; typical customers would pay ~M$ for using it (and found it to be worth it). Using this system in a well-managed and optimized fashion on a large machine typically required several dedicated and trained administrators, or a service contract from the vendor who sent experts to customers (for a fee).
Now, clearly many end users clearly wanted it to be easier to use. But still configured correctly, so it runs extremely fast, and is reliable. The single largest cause of usage problems was human misconfiguring it, and mis-using commands they didn't fully understand. We had extremely good documentation (man pages, install guides, even books), and dedicated training classes, both for users, and for the vendor's support staff. In spite of that, bad things happened, and it was difficult to use. Some users were clamoring for a "configuration GUI".
So my colleague's presentation was about how to make management easier. He described the system in a slide, which showed an electronics workbench: On the right a soldering iron, in the middle an empty piece of PC board, and on the left a big unsorted pile of resistors, capacitors and transistors. This was the traditional way of managing the system.
The next slide showed how administration would work with a GUI: It was the same workbench with the same things on it, except he added an oscilloscope to the back. Everyone laughed. Some people actually got the point.
What's the point? Complexity exists. It exists for a reason. Big systems (such as FreeBSD) are intended to be used in a huge variety of use cases and workflows. There is not a single configuration that can be used for all these situations. An oscilloscope can help you tune the value of one component (such as adjusting one trimpot until the receiver circuit resonates nicely). It can be used to check whether the circuit is working (is there music coming out of test point 17). It can not tell you how to arrange that pile of resistors, transistors and capacitors into a functioning circuit. It can't teach you circuit theory, or the basics of electronics, but you need to understand those to build a good radio (or amplifier or robot controller). A GUI has its place, as a monitoring tool and for fine adjustment, but it does not make complexity go away. If you want to use a complex system, you need to learn how it works, and how the pieces work together. That is usually done by reading.
Now, if you have an appliance (like a refrigerator), you just plug it into a wall outlet, and it starts working. No need for a GUI. For a complex appliance (like a washing machine), a simple GUI works: A few adjusters (for temperature, cycle length and so on), and a few feedback elements (like how much longer before it is done).
