The funniest thing (to me) is not that the author doesn't like desktop icons, but that the problem had been largely solved many times for many decades...
“Largely solved [aside from the edge cases I don't care about]”
All of the edge cases were self-inflicted. They could have picked a different UX that would have had a much smaller set of edge cases to care about.
I agree with you on this, but also understand the OPs reasoning for searching out a better solution. it takes both homesteaders and pioneers.
At the cost of the things that the UX enables, no thank you. If I want gnome, I know where to find it.
Windows 95
Windows 95 had a fixed icon size with no previews, a restricted set of possible panels, and was released in an era when monitor cables were held on to the graphics cards with thumbscrews.
What's the point you're trying to make?
Probably that Windows 95 didn't really cover a lot of the challenges of desktop icons in modern computing systems as it was greatly limited at the time.
It could also be argued that Windows 95 marked the start of this complexity, at least in PC land. Prior to that, there was very little communication between the OS and the hardware regarding configuration. When it did happen (e.g. monitor resolution, speed of a serial port, etc.), it was directed by the operating system rather than by the hardware.