And, yet, it dominates the tablet and mobile environment, which is already more important than the desktop market ever was. Funny how that works.
Chromebook and hybrid tablets are slowly eating into the "laptop" market. Many people will never buy a laptop because their tablet or phone does what they need. I know a lot of people who go weeks between opening their computer, but live on their phone and tablet. Desktop and laptop will be a thing people use at work for a long while, and it'll probably still be ruled by Windows. Creatives and developers will have beefy computers, and they'll probably still be running Windows and Mac OS X predominantly (though I use Fedora, and have never really worked on anything other than a Linux system). For now. I can't predict what will happen on that front, but phones and tablets are encroaching on so many fronts I never would have predicted (I just bought my first tablet last week, and thought they were ridiculous for years even after they'd started taking off).
Tablets and chromebooks have already been around for several years. Why do I still use a desktop for work? Why don't I just ssh everywhere from my eyepad?
Because they suck at making me productive.
Desktops and actual laptops are not going anywhere, because they run fully featured OSs that people can contribute to, not some nasty walled garden of corporate shrink-wrapped ToS turds and ignored pull requests (if you're so lucky to even come within barfing distance of a FOSS component on lobotomy-hardware).
Look, IBM started predicting the death of the desktop, what, 20 years ago? 30? It's not going to happen. Then laptops came around. They're gonna kill the desktop! O noes! Not gonna happen. Ultrabooks are gonna kill laptops! Yeah, maybe.. Depends on how much they wind up resembling good laptops.
Starts to sound pretty familiar after a while.
Please re-read my comment; I've already conceded the workplace will remain a desktop/laptop domain for some time, and that I can't predict when that will change, and for the reasons I mentioned. And, as I said, I don't know how the workplace will play out on the desktop and laptop. I bet it will gradually show declining power for Microsoft and increasing market for Apple and various Linux variants (for different reasons).
So, I don't disagree with you. Desktops and laptops will stick around for a long time in some segments, including the workplace. I don't know how long that will last, possibly decades more. But, it doesn't matter; the desktop/laptop is already less important than the phone/table...and Linux won that market. It effectively won "Desktop 2.0".
Why are they on Stack Exchange? If they are installing a Linux distro on a Windows computer, then of course you will have an unpleasant experience. If you want to use Ubuntu the right way without having to butt heads with anything, you buy a system from zareason / thinkpenguin / system76.
You can / will run into the same "searching the Internet" for problems installing Windows on your custom built gaming rig. Driver bugs, config issues, etc. Except for those you will end up digging through yahoo answers or windows help with even more misinformation and bloat.
In the end fundamentally it is not a problem with the Linux desktop. You can use a terminal on Windows as well, but you don't expect to because you bought a Windows computer and expect it to work. The same expectation should be had of prebuilt Ubuntu systems, and I think nowadays it lives up to expectation in my experience.
(unless, of course, I'm missing something)
...I'm running Ubuntu on an ASUS laptop that cost under $400, which worked almost seamlessly, and I installed Mint on my ma's laptop that cost under $400. (That incurred finding a new video driver to avoid running everything in 800x600)
I would love to have a Linux-out-of-the-box experience, but the price has to make sense.
That is not good UX for the average joe, or anyone you are just introducing to Linux. It is a UX fail and ruins impressions when people try to install Linux on arbitrary hardware and have a bad time of it. Yes, if you are a veteran and know what you are doing you can do better than the vendors, but to recommend anything else to a Linux newbie without absolute confidence in comprehensive hardware support is just ruining their first impression.
Given that it's Google, that's hardly a compelling argument. They could've made Windows NT dominant if they'd so desired.
Linux doesn't describe one OS, rather a class of OSes. Like Cancer isn't a disease but a class of disesases, or functional programming isn't one language but a class of them.
Google is dominant because they dominiated. MS didn't dominate, google does, and it's not like both companies couldn't compete in a money fight. And this comes back to Windows NT not being dominant despite MS's wishes.
And, when Google started down the Android path, they weren't the Google we know today. It was not a foregone conclusion, and had they chosen a tech which they couldn't control completely, I can't imagine how it could have worked out the way it has. Microsoft couldn't make Windows dominate on the phone/tablet, despite devoting plenty of resources to the task, I'm sure Google couldn't have (given that anybody that buys from Microsoft plays to Microsoft's tune or they don't play at all).
"Make it on the desktop" always meant "the consumer desktop". There is no consumer desktop in the future. The consumer desktop is a tablet or a phone or a TV device or all three. I don't understand it, I don't necessarily like it (I like desktops with big monitors, big hard drives, big mouse and keyboard, and a nice chair to sit in), but it's the way things are. Computing isn't something consumers do sitting at a desk any more. So, Linux won what is currently the way consumers use computers. And, that's hella fascinating, and hella cool.
This is a huge factor for its success, considering all previous efforts of coordinating distros (e.g. LSB) pretty much failed.