I don't think Linux becoming a "Windows clone" is necessarily a bad thing either, it is a user preference on my part. My background is UNIX workstations, which was the 'feel' that Linux had for a long time. But open source is by definition a function of those who can commit to the source base. As the Linux community has evolved so have the design tastes. I hate systemd, I understand the argument made by the systemd team for why they think it is a superior solution to what existed before, but it doesn't change my distaste for the architecture style. I look for alternatives and TrueOS was suggested and I tried it out, so far I like it.

You're accessing a single distro, which is targeted at Windows switchover users and complaining that they cater to them more?

While Linux shouldn't be purposely user-hostile if it wants to be used in a desktop computer environment, Linux has a different purpose than emulating Windows. That's why Linux can't really be compared to something like ReactOS. It's purpose (in my opinion) is libre software and configurability options (compared to operating systems such as Windows). To change both of those in the name of proprietary software and/or forced ease of use/non-configurability would alienate the original purpose and fracture the community. That's why systemd/Poetteringware is so controversial (and GRUB2 on a much smaller scale), and the near-universal hatred of systemd among UNIX veterans for its mostly-successful monopolism over init systems (and everything else nobody on a lower-end system would ever run at once) only proves my point. While Linux's reputation as a desktop Unix-like does warrant the need for ease-of-use to truly be considered as that, there is a reason that people use Linux and Windows in different situations and environments.

I don't think being a Windows clone helps with adoption because you often end up with people getting wound up Linux looks familiar but behaves completely differently. Then all of Linux's differences are seen as problems (because it's not behaving as expected) rather than perfectly reasonable design decisions.

I'd rather Linux look different. I'm not saying it has to look alien nor hard to use either. But different enough that when people choose to use it, they come to it with a mindset that they can't just treat it like a Windows clone.

Well, MacOS behaves “completely differently,” too, so what? (By the way, Windows has been behaving completely differently from itself over the past few versions.)

I can't tell if you're disagreeing with me or not because the tone reads as if you're making a counterargument but your arguments are actually agreeing with me.

> Well, MacOS behaves “completely differently,” too, so what?

...so when people come to use OS X they don't expect it to work like Windows and thus are more tolerant to having to alter their workflow accordingly.

Which is the point I'm making about how Linux harms itself when it tried to emulate Windows too closely.

> (By the way, Windows has been behaving completely differently from itself over the past few versions.)

Yes, and people complain frequently about it. I don't see how that contradicts the point I was making.

Does it matter whether random people think Linux is user-hostile? Why is it important that grandma be able to use Ubuntu instead of macOS or Windows on her desktop?

Yes! How do you think you bring new people in to the Linux community? Everyone starts somewhere, and no one is teaching Linux desktop to primary school students.

Anecdotally, the first Linux experience that I was able to install and operate myself, after a handful of prior failed attempts, was Ubuntu (2005). And a big part of that was that it was friendly to absolute beginners like myself.

Now I am a FreeBSD developer and have patches in a plethora of open source projects, including Linux. Everybody starts somewhere!

> random people

A.k.a. your “customers.”