> the lack of commercial apps is another problem it should work on (when it comes to people's needs)
I think that's a losing proposition. People like me who use Linux have mostly everything they need -- and there really is a lot for the Linux desktop these days. The people who need "commercial apps" are on Windows and MacOS already, and for them, the Linux experience will always be subpar (I'm assuming for them the vast quantities of FOSS are either not enough, or not easy to use). Moving to a "commercial desktop" like Canonical seems to be trying to do will result in a failure and alienate the current userbase who loves Linux for what it is. Attempts at gatekeeping, doubly so... just look at the reactions against every move Canonical does in this direction.
Reality is a moving goalpost itself. The desktops (Windows, macOS) aren't in some standstill waiting for Linux desktops to catch up.
But what you described isn't a "moving goalposts" case anyway. It's problems that need to be solved one after another and which all were initially present as issues.
Since at first, it wasn't usable, it wouldn't matter if it has Autodesk apps. Usability was more important.
Once it got usable, it still didn't matter if it had Autodesk apps, when it didn't have drivers.
Then, when it got the drivers, that only meant you could use your printer, wifi, bluetooth, etc. But the "crashing a lot" would be a problem greater still, greater than the lack of commercial apps.
>A "desktop" for me is where you can play movies, edit documents, browse the net and check email.
And for billions of people it's those things, plus work stuff they need to be able to run, multimedia creation they need once in a while, game stuff they like to play and so on...
Now that it does have most things in order, the lack of commercial apps is another problem it should work on (when it comes to people's needs).