Wow. Such sweeping generalizations make me not want to pay attention to anything this article has to say.
But let's entertain the possibility that parts of that statement are true. It's practically impossible for "Linux developers"—whatever that means—to ensure that a change they make doesn't break something downstream. Unlike proprietary operating systems, the Linux ecosystem is not maintained by a single company, so it's impossible to know and account for all the environments a piece of software will run in. Distro maintainers work tirelessly to ensure bugs don't make it to users, but it's simply impractical to test every single combination of hardware and software that exists. This is extremely difficult even for proprietary operating systems where development is centralized, let alone for a distributed environment like most software for Linux, and Linux itself, is developed in.
When you think about it, it's a miracle of modern software engineering and a testament of the power of collaboration and the free software movement that the Linux ecosystem works as well as it does, and in many areas matches or exceeds the functionality of other operating systems, all the while preserving important user freedoms. GNU/Linux is a stronghold for user-friendly computing among alternatives from companies that want to control how you use your computers, or profit from your data or attention. It's not perfect, but it's one of the few options we have (besides the BSDs, but I wouldn't consider them to be as user-friendly).