I do find it interesting how many people are ready to jump on a bash Windows or Office when they change their interface in ways that aren't obvious, while the response in KiCAD's case is often to leap to their defense. I'm not a fan of MS changing the interface all the time, but given the huge user base it usually only takes a couple of minutes on Google to find the solution to your frustration. The much smaller user base of specialist software like KiCAD means that those resources are far more sparse. A little venting after hours or days fighting what seems like an impossible problem is not unexpected, and probably should be greeted with some tolerance.
See, the problems for both Kicad and Microsoft are that:
(i) some people don't like the interfaces and some people do, but the users get on with it and do the task at hand.
(ii) if the user interface is changed to appease the people who didn't like the old interface, the other users complain, even if the new interface is better.
(iii) users who a few years ago tried the program and found the interface lacking in whatever manner still use that obsolete experience to complain about the interface -- even if the interface
has changed to what might be more their liking.
The problem with CAD software, whether for mechanical design or for electronics design, is that there really is no "best" way to do it. If there was, every program would follow the same paradigm.
gnuarm's assertion that "schematic capture and layout are inherently simple processes that were done for a very long time with pencil, paper and tape. That's how simple it is." is reductive. "Inherently" simple, perhaps, but the devil is in the details. Paper-based schematics and rubylith-based layouts were used when there was no other option, but for obvious reasons those processes have been abandoned. Can a paper-based schematic output a BOM for purchasing? Can you absolutely guarantee correspondence between all nets on the paper schematic and all traces on the rubylith layout? Can you manage the correspondence between a resistor symbol on your paper schematic and the footprint on the PCB and the part you order? The point here is that the tools have grown to manage that complexity, but of course that means that the tools themselves have gotten more complex.