If my family is not made up of 'ordinary users' then I guess we live in different worlds.
I installed ZorinOS on my father's computer more than a year ago. He works with Libre Office, uses internet browser, edits photos with photopea.com and watches videos. So far, not a single time has anything crashed or caused issues for him which was a common occurrence in windows.
So yeah, Linux desktop may never be ready for you but I can literally see Linux desktop being more than ready for ordinary users.
However, the "ordinary users" among today's young people grew up with tech, and expect more advanced functionality. Advanced functionality that, on Linux, requires advanced knowledge because of how fragmented and rough it is.
One doesn't have to switch to Linux to know that it's disruptive tech. It's gaining traction each year and only becoming a better product, whether one likes it or not.
Maybe that's the real confusion. Nobody is saying that Linux is not "ready for the desktop" (i.e. usable, stable, etc.) for some people on some machines. They're saying it's not ready in general in the same way that Windows and Mac are.
There are still too many random hardware issues, unsupported devices, rough UX edges and so on. Of course Windows and Mac are not immune to those but they cause issues much less commonly.
Still too many implies more than 50% of existing hardware has issues which could not be true because I've installed Linux on more than 20 computers with different hardware configuration. The only ones that have given me hardware issues were newer laptops with Nvidia drivers but even those Nvidia issues were fixed by Nvidia (like RTX 3050 not supporting join displays function with external monitor).
Unsupported devices, that's not entirely because of the Linux Desktop. Buy a laptop from Tuxedo and tell me if you get those issues because you 100% of the time are buying a Windows computer. That's like expecting Windows to work properly without issues on MacBook natively and then complaining that Windows does not support Apple when in reality it's the opposite.
Linux is not magic, it's fast, it's efficient, it's amazing but it cannot be one sided. If it doesn't work for your hardware, you can't really blame Linux for not supporting something that does not want to support Linux. Linux will be fine on 99% of the general hardware, but when it's not, just simply accept that it's not compatible. Instead of blaming all of the Linux desktop.
> Of course Windows and Mac are not immune to those but they cause issues much less commonly.
No other reason other than paid and owned occupancy. Linux laptops work great, Linux on desktop works great with most hardware. Newer hardware takes time but can we really blame the kernel maintainers for not getting the edge Microsoft does?
We get it! You guys like big tech overlords and you're too comfortable with using whatever spyware they have these days but Linux has been working great for many of us for years and we have no complaints.
Those of us who use Linux appreciate it for what it is, not for what it can be.