2021 edition, same as the 1991 edition.
I think the struggles of the Linux desktop is ripe for a historical analysis as to why it is so problematic.
I remember the hate and invective I heard from one GTK developer about a bug that prevented menubars from working correctly in GTK apps when you ran them in a captive window with an X server under Microsoft Windows.
Ultimately it's a lack of resources. A company could produce a polished Linux desktop but nobody will pay for it so it won't happen.
Sadly, I have to agree with you. I am more than willing to be convinced otherwise, and I wish someone could/would convince me!
I have worked on commericial and open source desktop projects. On the commercial side, I worked on BeOS and OSX. On the open source side, I worked at Eazel, was a main developer of Nautilus (year 2000!) and worked on numerous GNOME libraries to improve the linux desktop experience.
When I compare the process and resources we had at Eazel to the process and resources used at Apple, there is no comparison. The amount of coordination, dedication and time put into shipping each version of OSX was incredible.
I want open source Linux desktop environments to succeed. This is why I poured my heart into Eazel and Nautilus. I would even do it again if I could be convinced the effort would succeed. After my experience with Eazel/Nautilus/GNOME and seeing how problems were solved at Be and Apple, I am not convinced the current system of linux desktop software development will ever yield a usable, general purpose product.
Please convince me I am wrong! I know various distros work for some and a certain set of people will continue to be pleased with what is available. I frequently look at the latest offerings and am visited (in spirit) by my various mentors from Be and Apple, pointing out all the issues and I realize how much work it will be to make "them" happy.
As a reminder, Chrome OS is Linux. Google is funding that and some parts of it benefit the rest of Linux.
Google has also been working recently to get more improvements that they made to the Linux kernel upstreamed in a more timely fashion.
Sway is a great desktop environment for power users that was supported from crowdfunding and with a lot of volunteer help.
My opinion of Chrome OS is that it is a cancer and I don't want Google anywhere near anything to do with the free software movement. I don't want their kernel pushes, I don't want their libraries and I don't want their opinion. Yes, I am an extremist, but Google and Facebook (and others) are not ethical partners. I have made compromises in the past and they have yielded nothing of value to me.
Thank you for funding the work for Linux on M1. That really does matter!
I could see myself paying let's say $100 a year for a polished Linux desktop. "Polished" meaning no screen tearing, video hw acceleration, working power management, macOS (or at least Windows) level of GUI consistency, nice package manager with a curated app store.
How many customers would be required to support a project like this?
Subscription models are customer kryptonite. They run screaming with pain when you propose them, and only grudgingly accept them when no other option exists.
Providing a subscription model for a desktop environment adds additional complexity. Do you want to be cut off from using your desktop when your subscription lapses? As a developer, I am not interested in you paying me $100 for a year and then be able to use the product for life. My mind will change if you are willing to pay $1000 up front.
As a software developer and entrepreneur, I founded companies that could sell software for $499, provide one upgrade and then charge a smaller amount for additional upgrades. Those days are over.
I recently spent a significant sum develop a mobile application for a niche market. It was well liked, worked well, provided a real solution for a real problem. It was offered as a subscription. Endless one star reviews and hate. It was offered for $49.99. Endless one star reviews and hate.
Something has gone wrong with consumer expectations on pricing and the effort required to fund development of software that meets customer expectations. I feel we are in a software dystopia and can't figure out how to fund product development.