> The problem is little to no funding. I honestly don't believe that to be the case. There's a big difference between commercial products like MacOS or Windows

> The problem is little to no funding. I honestly don't believe that to be the case. There's a big difference between commercial products like MacOS or Windows and Linux. That difference isn't so much funding (remember that Linux is backed by all major companies), but the fact that Linux itself is really just the kernel, whereas Windows and MacOS aim to be the whole package (with varying degrees of success). There is simply no such thing as "Linux, the OS including desktop and UI". It's dozens of projects with different philosophies and goals. KDE differs from Gnome, Mate, or XFCE and those have a different approach to the desktop UI metaphor than say i3 or xmonad. A standardized Linux Desktop experience would help with bundling resources as well as polish and fixing the "boring" stuff. But this would fly in the face of the "make-it-your-own"-approach that desktop Linux tends to take. The constant dance between stability/maturity and bleeding edge is another big factor. The former allows for little annoyances to be ironed out, while the latter attracts more developers because that's the fun stuff to work on. As a user you do have the choice to go for a stable, more conservative distro or play with the latest toys on rolling release distros. Specialized distros like SteamOS do quite well in their respective niche, though. In summary, the Linux eco system is simply too diverse to point at a single issue like funding as the main reason for its perceived shortcomings on the Desktop side of things. The comment above pretty much nailed it - it's developed by Linux guys and their goal simply isn't to emulate Windows.