I used to make this claim as someone who had been using desktop gnu/linux for several years. I've been using OSX now for a year and so stopped making the claim. But it is really frustrating to hear people say "it works for me" to rebut claims that it doesn't work for most people. Such counters and arguments over them are basically single data points. If the point under discussion is "does desktop linux work well enough to gain massive amounts of market share?", then you need to run actual large scale trials comparing how hard it is for people to...
1) Start up a spreadsheet program and do things
2) Check social media and play some random video
3) Play League of Legends
4) <insert your favorite thing here>
Some of these things are indeed comparably easy in, say Ubuntu (or were pre-unity) for me, but I was an MIT undergrad that hung around SIPB, the computer club. My massive amounts of tech privilege make it impossible to individually evaluate if the user experience someone has with spreadsheets is acceptable unless I put real study into it. The same is probably true of many HN commenters. So until someone spends the time and money to run actual user experience studies, we have no data to say that the linux desktop can take over the world.
Also, there isn't even one "Linux desktop". There is mint, Ubuntu+gnome classic, Ubuntu+unity, ubuntu+some weird xmonad setup.
Another argument I often see for why Desktop Linux has an advantage is that "Linux is free as in beer". But it is not. If someone making $15/hr takes more than 8 hours (not unrealistic, at least for an MIT CS student back in 2010) fiddling with things and trying to get them to work, then desktop Linux is more expensive.
Learning Linux is like learning LaTeX. It requires serious effort to become powerfully useful but then you never want to miss it because there is nothing that can actually compete.
OSX and Windows are easier to handle at the first place but if you get into the details then you may have more trouble than in Linux (driver problems, document formats) because there is no obsolescence in Linux. In OSX and Windows you depend on the cooperation of the manufacturers. In Linux drivers, applications, and document formats written decades ago still work.
> Learning Linux is like learning LaTeX
This is a particularly fantastic analogy when you look at the type of error messages that LaTeX produces.
Nevertheless LaTeX is still the favorite DTP system among scientists. LaTeX is actually not too hard to learn. It just requires some mental effort to get it. Scientists are willing to do that. Some people obviously don't.
Maybe but using a Linux distro like Ubuntu or Mint or similar is more like using an Office package.
Maybe the average Linux user is OK with this, but I can't help but be bugged by it. Cost of having so many options, I suppose.
Elementary does better than most, but only by including a set of software designed explicitly to fit there.
As far as the general look and feel though, it still manages to feel more consistent. There are enough conventions like "clickable things have a hover effect" and relatively consistent styling of UI icons (pre-10 anyway) for it to feel like it's all one system.
Not that OSX is any better - Apple's own Pro apps always had different look that the rest of the system. iTunes was always experimenting with looking odd. Also, third party apps look different - Office, Adobe apps, etc.
So, it nothing wrong with Linux, all systems are like this.
That said, every single time I've tried to use a Linux OS either as my primary laptop or desktop OS I experience significant problems that no end user should have to deal with... the last time, I added a drive after install... the system updates included an update to grub.. next reboot, wouldn't even load... after 3 days of setting up my environment, applications, vmware, etc, etc... I can't even fucking boot.
The time before that I couldn't get both monitors to work... twice before that I picked recommended hardware for linux support (straight intel graphics) and hit weird regressions when the OS updated on one, and the other just some wierd suspend issues..
I agree "works fine" for the desktop is a huge stretch... it does appear to mostly work okay for my HTPC, except when it resumes from suspend there's no sound (fortunately it's got an ssd and reboots fast), or that if I happen to turn it on too early before the TV is on, the display doesn't come on the screen (guessing it picks the DV port instead of the HDMI)...
either way.. still stuff that's worked in windows/osx forever, without issue.
was this in the 90s, early 2000s? Linux hasn't had those issues in a decade. Suspend/Resume is horrible on Windows of me as well, my linux systems do so flawlessly, but there is a good 10% chance of blue screen when undocking my corporate windows laptop out of suspend.
The issue with booting was mid-late 2013, I haven't tried running Linux as the main OS on my desktop since, Windows 10 has me considering it.
This claim is usually made by Windows users who don't want to invest any effort and time to learn another desktop -- which they had to do in Win8 anyway.
Linux offers several nice desktops (KDE, Gnome, XFCE, E17, etc.) which we can freely choose from. I am a Linux user since the 90's and I have always used it as my primary desktop. It works perfectly well for me. I consider the new Windows metro "desktop" more horrible than even simple Linux desktops.
Freedom has a price. Education has a price. Both require the sincere willingness to do something for it.