I love the Linux desktop, but that doesn't mean I don't see its problems

I would check whose paychecks do most Linux contributions, and then there is the Cloud.

That doesn't contradict my point. If you don't care, just grab some distro that seems reasonably prevalent, like Ubuntu or whatever. They have spins or flavors or whatever they're called, but on the website you don't exactly have to make a choice. There's a big "download" button that gives you the "recommended" choice. Install that.

You'll be able to view your files and folders and click a shortcut to run a program. And that process will be quite stable and smooth, I'd argue even more than on Windows, since you can actually find useful apps on the "store", as opposed to having to hunt on random websites.

If you want consistency, presumably over time, then yeah, you may not get that. But neither will you on Windows, who've changed the explorer in Windows 10 and now again in Windows 11. The explorer-like app that seems to have been the most stable is Finder. But then macOS changed in other ways...

It seems you can't really win at this, regardless of your OS of choice... So it think that's not fair to only throw Linux under the bus for this, while praising the others.

Those that cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

"Half an operating system: The triumph and tragedy of OS/2"

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/11/half-...

The section "A better DOS than DOS, a better Windows than Windows" is worth a close look and introspection about what WINE/Proton effectively bring to the table.

thank you, that's quite an interesting article. however i don't agree that the lessons of OS/2 apply to linux.

for one, linux does not have a single business interest driving it, so many of the OS/2 issues relating to IBM don't apply.

being a better windows than windows bolstered windows apps, but only killed OS/2 because native OS/2 was worse than native windows. that too does not apply to linux.

OS/2 died because IBM expected it to be backed by microsoft, and gave up when that didn't happen and they realised that it could not compete. linux never had this issue. linux won't loose its backing. linux never depended on being able to compete against windows. microsoft is now supporting linux more than it ever supported OS/2.

so at the worst, the status quo remains, and nothing changes. realistically though, wine will keep getting better, enabling some people to use it. wine will continue to be developed and supported. there is no risk of that ever stopping. there is no danger betting on wine, because once it works, it will continue to work indefinitely. at worst wine may fall behind implementing some new windows feature that new apps need, but it won't stop supporting what already runs.

wines user share is not going to go down. linux and wine development will not stop. unlike IBM we are able to play the long game here. there is nothing to loose. there are no risks to continue as we are.

The problem with Linux desktop is that there is no such thing as Linux desktop, because Linux is not an operating system, it is just a kernel.

Unfortunately, instead of treat each Linux distribution as a different operating system, people think of Linux distributions as a single operating system with different package managers and wallpapers.

And this is the real problem: how people set their expectations.

As people think about Linux distributions as a single operating system, they expect they work exactly like Windows or Mac OS, when things work different, they point theses differences as problems, but I guarantee you, everything is working as intended.

People need to understand how the Linux ecosystem works and when they do, everything makes sense.

First, the kernel Linux is not developed to be used on desktops. It can be used, but companies pay Linus Torvalds to build the kernel for servers and other use cases, desktop is a side effect.

Second, the stack that is used to build a Linux distribution for desktops, from systemd to x/wayland to gtk to gnome, is primarily developed by a single company, Red Hat.

For the last 20 years, Red Hat is paying directly or indirectly developers to work on software that is part of Linux Desktop stack, but as you know, Red Hat clients are not people, they are businesses.

So what people call "Linux Desktop" is a set of loosely coupled parts primarily paid by a single company to satisfy their clients needs. You look to "Linux Desktop" as "Corporate Linux Desktop" all problems of "Linux Desktop" suddenly disappear.

"Linux Desktop" usually needs a technical person to be maintained, but it is just fine for corporate desktops, because corporate desktops are maintained by IT people, not by users.

"Linux Desktop" sound stack and graphic stack suck, but that is fine too, because the latest Nvidia graphic card that you want to play your favorite games are not needed by corporate desktop office users.

And about "Linux Desktop" fragmentation, people need to understand the myriad of desktop environments and applications are not "fragmentation", because there is no unified effort to build a "Linux Desktop", there is a myriad of independent developers working alone or with each other to build software that satisfies their own needs.

At the end of day, what people call "Linux Desktop" is just a side effect of different companies and developers building stuff for their own needs. The regular Windows gamer or your mom/dad are not included in the package.