There is a companion argument linked in the first paragraph which lays out what desktop Linux needs to focus on to be better for beginners. The article you're r

There is a companion argument linked in the first paragraph which lays out what desktop Linux needs to focus on to be better for beginners. The article you're responding to is giving advice to beginners who want to get value out of Linux today, given that desktop Linux has not yet managed to make itself better for beginners. The current state of desktop Linux is that there's a category of Linux software that is suitable for beginners, which is built atop the set of features that make Linux excellent for the people who put the amount of time into learning the operating system that is appropriate for learning a professional tool. But this category of software (the GNOME and KDE desktop environments and 3rd party software intended to run inside one or the other) doesn't do much to ease the process of learning the deeper, more compelling aspects of Linux. It provides you with an interface that's recognizable to Mac and Windows users, but doesn't provide nearly as much power, and then expects you to learn Linux in all its depth to make up for that difference in capabilities. That makes Linux great for people who just need a web browser and maybe an email client, and it makes Linux great for people who have enough background technical knowledge to learn all its depth, but leaves it vastly inferior for everyone who needs more than a Chromebook but doesn't need a professional tool. If you fall into that category today and want to use Linux anyway, you need to learn its depths, and expect that until you do, it will be worse than the OS you're coming from. If we want to improve the situation, we need either go all the way and make GNOME just as powerful as macOS (which is a fools errand), or make GNOME better integrated into what Linux is already great at and ease the transition.