MacOS model is real solution. Like really.

Windows + chocolatey or macos + brew (cask) is better than any repository with dependencies on linux.

Also, do not want Arch or any <distro-name> - I just want LINUX (or Desktop Linux).

One predictable system, instead of many kinds/variants of basically the same programs - one system to hate, one system to deal with. (Arch wiki is good though)

> Also, do not want Arch or any <distro-name> - I just want LINUX (or Desktop Linux).

What do you mean ? How can you have Linux without using a distro ? Are you saying there should be one official distro instead of many ?

If you don't want to worry about distros just use Ubuntu. Argue amongst yourselves about with distro is "best" but Ubuntu has become a de-facto standard by this point, especially if you don't care about "Linux" and just want something that works.

[Awaits inevitable flood of comments along the lines of "I tried x on Ubuntu and it didn't work but it worked fine on y"]

I think he means he wants Linux to be like macOS or Windows where this is ONLY one distro. Which to each their own, but that misses the point of Linux and (s)he should probably stick to macOS or Windows.

> but that misses the point of Linux

Linux is kernel - I talk about good alternative for macOS/Windows, alternative desktop system, that can do much better than other two.

Well, at this point it's very complicated.

And this is why I think snap/flatpack/etc model ("system" in system) is real solution for linux desktop.

Valve's Steam client already achieved same thing: provided one "sdk" for apps, one runtime (that developer can rely on) - because you can't have one main linux organisation like microsoft and apple.