> “Good enough" is highly subjective. You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but millions of people also think otherwise.
Ironically, I might as well point out that billions of people think otherwise of Linux. In some countries, a few trees is “good enough” as a bridge. The IRS, of course, says COBOL is “good enough” to use as a web backend for the moment.
The weirdest thing is how people complain that engineering is a race of the bottom. Scarcely a thread goes by here without a tragedy of the commons reference. Yet inexplicably, business executives are terrified cowards when it involves free software. This of course makes no sense; you can’t have both. Either the complaints are wrong, or Linux is in fact unsuitable for purpose.
> Microsoft does a commendable job at maintaining backwards compatibility for apps written in their supported stacks, but step outside of this and you'll experience problems
Oregon Trail, a game made for Windows 95, still runs on Windows 11. (Edit for below complaint, as I’m posting too fast: You need all the DLLs that came with it on the original CD in the same folder as the EXE.)
Try installing and running any Linux app, be it even GNOME Chess, from four years ago. See how it goes. Consider my allegory of the sand skyscraper.
On that note, the Carbon to Cocoa transition mostly wrapped up a decade ago, and was completed by the majority of apps two decades ago. Try installing a Linux program from 2005 with a UI made in any toolkit of your choice.
The Linux community chases trends and kills APIs more often than Google.