I don't think most people who've told me "oh, <foo> has gotten a lot better in the last year" even know what the problems are that keep some people away. I think it's largely PR parroting, and a way to seem marginally 'with it' re: linux. "hey yeah, I know ubuntu had some issues in the past, but you should really try it now - it's a lot better!" - just got 2 emails from people in the last week or so asking why I use OSX.
I was a desktop/laptop linux user from 2000-2008. That's about 9 years of "oh hey - things are so much better this year". And yet... in 2008 I still had issues trying to have multiple apps access audio at the same time. I still had issues plugging in an external monitor on a laptop (or 2 monitors on a desktop). I grew tired of rickety perlgtk scripts that were marginal wrappers around Xorg config files that never quite ever worked the way I could interpret the man page info. I've used desktop ubuntu distros virtualbox and vmware over the past couple years - things don't seem to have gotten that much better, mostly because the majority of the developers in those ecosystems don't see these things as massive problems to be solved in the first place (indeed, with some, it's a badge of honor that things are still hard to configure).
Again, the point is "hey, linux is better on the desktop now", in my experience, comes from people who've never really used it for a long time and had moderate expectations not met. Many people I know that use desktop linux expect it to be subpar for many things, and when it's just 'par' they herald this as a big improvement.
That said, I really miss fish from KDE.