Linux implies a level of user arrogance and heavily implied it's the developer's fault and inability to understand how things the way they are. We can only test on so many configurations, and users will complain when their distro, or sound server, or preferred desktop environment isn't supported. If you don't think that last one matters, what happens when a certain obscure floating WM doesn't focus the window in an ICCCM-compliant way (WM_TAKE_FOCUS) and as a result, no keystrokes are delivered to the window. I had to fix that, for one user who was very loud on Twitter about how we clearly don't care about Linux. The total number of Linux sales was less than 0.1%, but cost us way too many support tickets and weeks of developer time.
That's pretty silly. If you have enough technical knowledge to use a non-default window manager, I feel like you should have enough self-awareness to know that you shouldn't necessarily be catered to by devs. I primarily use Linux on servers, though. Maybe I don't get the mentality of a Linux Desktop user.
OTOH I've never met one of those users, so unless more devs chime in to tell me this is fact ir someone can point to a number of mailing list post, issues or other verifiable artifacts I'll be tempted to assume it is a strawman.
Linux works best for people who just install it and use it, -and for people who are willing to learn how to fix it if they break it, AKA "grandparents and/or techies".
About 10 years has passed since I concluded that Ubuntu was more userfriendly than Windows. I had "installed"[0] Windows on someones computer and it took 4 hours to get it finished from pressing the power button the first time until bthe last nagware antivirus was gone and the computer was ready for use[1].
By comparison an Ubuntu installation at the time was 20-45 IIRC minutes depending on disk speed.
Ubuntu would the be ready to write a document, create a spreadsheet and browse the Internet, everything the typical user would wish.
There's only a few things Windows would do better at that time, most notably running Windows-only software and look familiar to Windows-only users.
[0]: or configured, it was supposed to be preinstalled so no idea why it used two hours just to get me to a login screen.
[1]: I've been a sysadmin so I'm well aware that Windows can be slipstreamed etc, but my experience here is what an end user would see.
I've seen this sentiment quite a bit; it's an oddly romantic view of systems administration.
Most of the time you're hunting through documentation to find the correct settings. It's nothing new in general, it's not some kind of exciting math that's new to you, and you're rarely actually learning how the thing works. It's mostly trying a series of things until you figure out that some strings go in a place.
I appreciate it more when I'm writing software, but largely because I can actually invest the time to really solve the problem, that it fucking stays fixed, and that people will get back hours of their life that would otherwise be spent getting frustrated and searching aimlessly.
Linux on the desktop is very nice and easy to use, once installed & configured.
However most people dont know how to install or configure Linux, Windows (or any other OS) on their devices.
This also happens to be the reason why Linux is not popular on the desktop; it lacks the strong relationship with the OEMs that gets an operating system pre-installed.