The one area where I don't advocate for GNU/Linux is in graphical user interfaces. The year of the Linux desktop will never come. For whatever reason, the cathedral can make a much better GUI than the bazaar.
Probably true. But largely irrelevant.
> the cathedral can make a much better GUI than the bazaar.
Can is such an open ended claim it's impossible to judge (there's always another tomorrow). But does? Not so sure. I've used the big 3 extensively. I don't buy into the dafter reaches of Linux advocacy ("your great-grandmother could install it & have no problems & it's way easier than ...). But OTOH the annoyances I get from running Fedora as my main machine are at least no greater than I've had with Windows and MacOS. I prefer it because its balance of positives and negatives suit my preferences best; but I don't find any of the 3 main desktop OS's categorically superior. Admittedly that's because they're all pretty dismal. Every unhappy OS is unhappy in its own way. And every desktop OS is unhappy.
To each their own.
Edit: Had my dates wrong at first, in case you caught it for that minute.
Er. Given Windows 8-11, the cathedral can also do so much worse. I'm not sure that's meaningful.
My employer only allows Windows for PCs and iOS for phones.
If i buy i smartphone at a resonable price there is only Android. (no i will not pay 500 Euros for a thing that costs 50 Euros).
Almost none, instead Windows gets kind of emulated via Proton, thus making irrelevant any business reasons to target GNU/Linux directly.
Major desktop environment UIs are just as fine, if not better. They're just unfamiliar.
In themselves, each desktop is OK, the problem is that the UI experience is fragmented across several different toolkits (i.e. gtk, qt, etc) so it doesn't look consistent.
Windows and Mac do not have this problem.
The other problem is that a client-server architecture is inefficient for a locally rendered UI.
OTOH, when you buy a new laptop from a budget vendor or with slightly obscure HW, you have to wait 6month - 1year for all drivers to work well.
> the problem is that the UI experience is fragmented across several different toolkits
On windows also, most applications use their custom UI.
> client-server architecture is inefficient for a locally rendered UI.
Never a problem in practice. KDE is much faster and lighter than Windows 10.
Some 10 years ago, maybe. Hiding scrollbars, making them small, gray on gray - that is not QA and UX.
With exception of NeXTSTEP, Irix, NeWS, UNIX is only good at headless workloads anyway, even POSIX doesn't cover GUIs.
The barrier will always be pre-installed OS. Needing to fiddle in the BIOS before you can install is a bridge too far.
Simple, fast, lots of functionality. Reminds me of all the best parts of Windows XP and the focus is on tasks/programs and not full-screen apps like modern Gnome.
And almost as lightweight as FVWM (not quite, but closer than most mainstream DEs).
For some, I'm sure this true but it's never quite worked for me. It's opinionated, which is fine but that means it isn't going to work for everybody.
Historically configurability of major OSes/DEs has almost always been:
1. KDE
2. Gnome 2
3. Windows
4. Gnome >2
5. MacOS