That's one of the most elaborate manifestations of ignorance I've came across on internet. Kudos for that! Apparently you don't even know what you're comparin

That's one of the most elaborate manifestations of ignorance I've came across on internet. Kudos for that! Apparently you don't even know what you're comparing. In none of MacOS, Windows, Android or iOS is there a separate, standalone component that is a window manager. There is one huge OS, of which the desktop environment is a small part, and the window manager is a small, possibly unidentifiable part of that small part. Whereas a window manager is one part of a completely modular stack of software. It can definitely be perfected into something that works like those abovementioned systems (see elementary OS or Ubuntu, for example; and it's not like the "fit and finish" is there in Windows 10), but the thing is that the core userbase isn't in the market for that sort of perfection. I specifically use this stack of software (and there's way more to it than Linux itself) because I can decide what's perfect for me and still run loads of software on it wihout having to port them. Fit and finish is mine to do. I totally understand that someone may not want to do that, there are distros for them (Android is one), and then there is Windows and MacOS, all are options. But you're criticising (some) distros for doing what they're supposed to do, i.e. being highly, even completely customisable. Furthermore, I can easily say "they look good in screenshots but whenever you go to use them, the fit and finish just isn't there" about Windows or Macs, and what that basically means in all of the cases is that I'm criticising an unfamiliar paradigm with total disregard for or ignorance of the motives that cause it to be the way it is.