I think this is the reason Linux hasn't penetrated the desktop more than it has. “Just reinstall” is too often the solution to issues. Starting over will often throw away hours of someone’s time. This can be catastrophic for a non-technical user. I wish the Linux desktop was implemented more like a user extension on top of a rock solid base server layer (eg hypervisor). Maybe such a setup exists, but I’m unaware of it.
It is the easiest solution, requires no research or technical ability, and will not have any left over cruft from the hours of customizing.
The same goes for windows, I know people who reinstall every 6 months just to keep their system clean and working optimally.
> I wish the Linux desktop was implemented more like a user extension on top of a rock solid base server layer.
I would argue that the Linux kernel is that server layer, but let's not open that can of worms.
Maybe Fedora Silverblue is up your ally. All the apps, including the desktop environment are containers.
Or if you really want an actual hypervisor you could try Qubes, but that is not for the faint of heart.
Yes, the package manager is definitely not a part of the desktop.
Also, trying to chase the elusive 'casual user' is what caused all the GNOME UX mess in the first place I guess. I'm not an 'archetypical' Linux nerd, I hate wasting time with fixing stuff that should "just work", but I'm also expecting a computer to be a professional tool which I can customize to my needs (within reason at least).
The ease of the GUI ends when a serious system-level issue arises. This has never not been the case, it's just a matter of how much the documentation expects you to know what's going on, and how much that impacts the first-run experience. If the first-run is good enough, "reinstall" becomes the go-to fix.
Installing and running KDE will mess up GTK settings in GNOME for instance. You might end up with the Breeze GTK theme in the GNOME session. Which works, but this is most likely not wanted (even though GNOME looks great with the Breeze theme).
I'd not advise regular users to do this without a warning.
You could even switch between them each time you log in, depending on your mood that day.
While its a joke, every joke contains some portion of a joke.
Regardless, not sure where you've gotten that impression of Linux. The only times I've reinstalled is when I've gotten a new laptop, and in those cases I just copy my home directory over to the new laptop and everything just works.
The GP's example of needing to reinstall because they wanted to change desktop environments is nonsensical; I don't think anyone even remotely knowledgeable would recommend a reinstall in that case. Just a trip to the package manager app and a restart.
I think there are quite a few reasons why the Linux desktop isn't more common, but "need to reinstall to fix issues" certainly isn't one of them.
I agree that trying out a new desktop environment by selecting a distro package would not normally require a reinstall. However, in general installing and removing packages (not specifically a desktop manager), especially custom ones with conflicting dependencies can lead to things being broken without a clear direction forward. To paraphrase Tolstoy, each broken system tends to be broken in its own way — which makes it hard to find help. Maybe wifi, sound, or BlueTooth get inexplicably flaky. Or power management. It is not hard for me to imagine a situation where a user just gives up and reinstalls. Reading up on Silverblue (which someone else mentioned) and other technologies like Nix give me hope that things are improving.
I am forced to save things instead of all the times in the past that I have lost important data.
If my system blows up right now, I will be wiped clean with a fresh install in less than 15 minutes.
I don't really care what other people do with their computers. If someone doesn't want to use Plasma, they are the ones missing out.