The "idea" of the article is true. However I do think the KDE plasma desktop experience (at least since I've been using it a few months ago) works really well a

The "idea" of the article is true. However I do think the KDE plasma desktop experience (at least since I've been using it a few months ago) works really well and is on par with macOS. The UI of all the KDE applications are very similar, and the 2 others app I use (IntelliJ and Firefox) have their own cross-platform UI anyways. The desktop is stable and fast and I haven't noticed any missing features we "take for granted" on macOS and Windows. I do admit there are a few flaws. And by "few" I mean, basically package installation. I need to use sudo apt-get or dpkg -i or "Marketplace" or sometimes just build directly. I'm using Debian, maybe Arch is better here but even `pacman -S` is confusing to people who've never used Linux before. Also you can't just click on a .deb to install it which makes no sense and is a major flaw IMO as most people just download from site + click to install on other OSs anyways. There are also a few areas where plasma actually does things better than macOS and Windows (e.g. click-to-open, "move here / copy here" dialog). IMO the biggest issue is that the Linux desktop space is so fragmented, it took me a while to find plasma. My first Linux desktop was Ubuntu on xfce which is IMO garbage and unless I'm mistaken still the de-facto default. I definitely don't think that everyone should converge on plasma, but I do think it would be nice if everyone can agree to recommend plasma to newcomers: yeah it has a lot of bloat for power-users and may be slower, but as of now nothing else really compares in user-friendliness.