Not if you're assessing comments like "it just works".

Zoom making their software badly on Linux is 100% in line with the company. They aren't aiming for good design, they are aiming for the nontechnical user using out of the box windows or MacOS.

If you're assessing comments like "it just works", then there are two possibilities. Either it works for you, at which point you have more anecdata, or it doesn't work for you, at which point you have a refutation. This is the same, regardless of whether you are using the Linux version or any other version.

FWIW, the Linux version works fine for me, with a couple of niggles. The most annoying of which is that the software turns the headphone volume up to maximum at the start of every call.

I think the part of the equation missing here is that you don't just have anecdata, you have data that more or less applies to most cases of your specific OS + Browser + other relevant customizations. If you have a highly customized system, you're simply more likely to experience issues from edge cases, yes. That data is also much less reflective of the average user.

No, it's not hard scientific data with a p-value. But IMO it's important to not simply write away all experience as anecdote not data without contextualizing the relevancy of the anecdata in question. I have seen way too many HN comments that look at usability and don't realize how specific their situation is that causes their issue. That and of course their complaints not being relevant/visible to the typical end user.