There is nothing wrong with you and many people liking it. Everybody have their own preferences.

But.. First of all as a user of galaxy my personal opinion of it that it does have a lot of negative points about it, while still being useful in certain cases. It still is very buggy, low on the side of customization to point out a few.

Secondly, the GOG userbase for years was build on certain principles. Many gamers chose GOG for its principles on matters such as its DRM-free stance, as noted on the home page.

Thirdly, You can read the already gigantic threads on this topic patiently to get some idea about the situation.

My personal take on this matter is as follows :
1. The recent uproar was mainly not about the existence of Galaxy, but the fact that Galaxy was announced to be bundled with game installers.
2. Now what this meant is that those who did not want to use Galaxy (and you can't blame anyone for having certain preferences) were irked by this move, feeling that Galaxy was being forced .
3. For some, like me, this move was totally unnecessary, as there is not point of having Galaxy installer infesting every game setup file.
4. GOG argument that it would be friendlier for new users can lead to other debates. But to keep it short they could have taken other ways to introduce Galaxy to new members, like banners and buttons to install Galaxy (which already exists in some form). If some user is unfamiliar with the workings of a new website the solution can be to introduce him/her to it ( by virtual tour of the site/ or a short tutorial maybe).
5. The recent developments surrounding Galaxy and some games being dependent on it had effected on some that this may be a hint that GOG's DRM-free principle is getting more flexible. I don't consider it to be some kind of DRM yet. Still I am also a little worried about the path the site seems to tread on. I, like many others, don't want it to be similar to steam, and many others might prefer it that way. In GOG when I buy a game its mine to backup and play without being dependent on GOG.com. it is not a service like steam, where a user is to some extent dependent on the service to play their games. I am not arguing this one is better or that one, to each their own preference.

This was my view of the issue. You are welcome to agree or disagree to it. :)
And welcome to the forum! :)


EDIT: I feel that trying to follow Steam is not a good business model either. Steam are good at what they do, they got a much larger catalogue, their client is much more well developed, they got much more regional presence and awareness. But if you want to consider gaming something you want to cherish for years, then it doesn't seem to be a good decision to own your games on a place where you might lose access to those games if the service ever shuts down (read on what happened with GameSpy). I like to have my games "just like a book, or DVD" - I can still read that book, or watch that DVD even if the publisher or the store I bought the product from is no longer there.