I see a lot of people discussing technical shortcomings and problems with user experience, and I think these are all missing the point a bit. Constantly changi

I see a lot of people discussing technical shortcomings and problems with user experience, and I think these are all missing the point a bit. Constantly changing APIs, inconsistent GUI paradigms, these are all side effects of the key feature of the Linux desktop experience: freedom. Anyone who wants to can write a window manager / Wayland compositor / GUI toolkit / terminal emulator / command shell that does things completely differently. Maybe a lot of this stuff is terrible, but some of it is brilliant in a way that lines up beautifully with how I want to use my computer. The market for freedom on the desktop isn't huge. Freedom is challenging and it's not worth the effort for most users. They have better things to do than to fight with bad network drivers. For them, the cost of buying new hardware every other year when planned obsolescence hits is worth not having to fight it. But for some of us, freedom is worth the effort. I bought a netbook in 2011 that I love and still use. If it weren't for Linux, I would have had to replace it in 2013 when Windows bogged down to the point of uselessness. Why does Linux have to take over the world to succeed? It's a success if it's there for those of us who want it.