In the general case, though, I think the biggest problem is that the community that uses and works on the Linux Desktop doesn't actually want it to improve.

If you're an open source developer, for instance, why would you work to improve or maintain software X when you can create an alternative that does things slightly differently? That looks a lot more impressive on a resume. And I'd swear many Linux Desktop users wish it was even more complicated and fragile either because they love troubleshooting or just so they can virtue signal that they're leet. I mean, why else would /r/unixporn exist?

I think this is largely an issue with X rather than users wanting to show off, I think wayland (while not perfect) can really help with developing easy to use desktop enviroments.

Also not everybody who uses "complicated" setups care about "leetness", personally I use i3 (and alot of mods, customizations) because nothing compares to the ease of use + functionality for me.

I personally want more linux desktop adoption, Ive switched my parents over, trying to convert my brother.

One of the things that has struck me with getting used to i3, even after a decade and a half "faking it" by mostly running apps maximized anyway, is that it is changing my thinking, not least due to the API. E.g. I recently started writing a text editor (because, why not), and it struck me that I really don't have a reason to support multiple windows. I added "splitting buffers" today by having it exec i3-msg to start another copy of itself.

I think what is really hampering Linux on the desktop is trying to play catch-up with Windows and OS X instead of rethinking the processes.

I suspect you'd have been better off switching them to ChromeOS. Most people do not need a desktop in 2017. There was only a brief window in the late 90s and early aughties when "most" people did, but that was only because of the internet. We have better consumer-oriented devices for that now. Desktops are for people who do work, hobbyists, developers, and the kind of gamer who is basically the hotrod-guy of the computing world. If someone actually wants to make the Linux Desktop a good desktop OS, they'll have to stop trying to make things "easy" for the strawman of the "average" user and instead make something for those people.

And the thing with ChromeOS and Android, is that having Linux as a kernel, it is just an implementation detail.

Given their managed userspace, Google can switch to something else and only OEMs would notice.

While I largely agree with your observation, the problem with ChromeOS is that not everybody wants to ship their behavioral data in real-time to Google. So, there is is still a place for a basic Linux-based family desktop that just runs a privacy-friendly browser.

That's not a desktop, it's a kiosk. Linux is actually fine for these kinds of single-tasking embedded use-cases.

But seriously, who does that? I don't know anyone who primarily uses a desktop computer just to browse the web. That's what tablets and phones are for. ChromeOS is just one of those with a bigger screen and a keyboard, which is why it is perfect for them.

"Family desktop" was only a thing in the brief period between the internet becoming popular with consumers and the first iPhone. Outside of that period, multi-user desktops (or microcomputers, if you recall the 80s) are an extreme edge case.

Don't forget about the educational market. ChromeOS is very popular in schools because of how locked down it is, and computer labs in schools are one of the few environments where multi-user desktops thrive.

Just in US schools though.

I hardly seen any Chromebook on sale, or being used in coffee shops, around European countries.

In Germany when they are on sale, they happen to be a single unit, discounted multiple times until it somehow disappears from the shop.

> If you're an open source developer, for instance, why would you work to improve or maintain software X when you can create an alternative that does things slightly differently? That looks a lot more impressive on a resume.

One could argue that this is one of the driving causes behind the current JavaScript churn madness.

That wasn't my read of the situation. Bottom line is, the administration realize that the cost savings promised might not materialized, and that most of IT problems could be resolved more cheaply by just moving to better version of windows

> the difficulties were largely political, not technical

Not all of the difficulties were political. Quoting from the article: "... Along the way, it was reported that 20% of the users of Limux were not happy or satisfied with it; other reports had the number at 40%. ..."