That's a lot more helpful, but I still don't quite get the conflict. Building a new distribution gives these people the choices they want (a custom installer,

That's a lot more helpful, but I still don't quite get the conflict. Building a new distribution gives these people the choices they want (a custom installer, better quality repositories, a decent system-wide configuration interface) - it's a way to create a unique take on Linux. A desktop environment is but one part of that - and it seems those people don't agree that it should be the most prominent one. All these words written on why the available Linux DEs suck were so far unconvincing from my point of view and I would've loved to see another thorough explanation. Most of the things I've read aren't specific to any Linux DE and mostly "I don't want to adapt to change" arguments - just like "Windows 8 is the downfall of Microsoft Windows" and "Maverick is the worst OS X ever" (or "Firefox changed the default theme!!"). Technically I'd say that there are a number of decent DEs available, all with benefits and tradeoffs. In fact, my biggest gripe with Linux on the desktop isn't that there's no decent DE, my pet peeve is the inconsistent looks between applications written for different DEs/in different Toolkits. Mixing GTK with QT (with motif, tk, swing, e17's libraries and whatnot in the mix) looks bad, feels unnatural and restricts my selection of tools for a job ("Am I going to install that thing? Naaah, it's based on QT"). I don't want more DEs, I'd prefer more progress a la freedesktop / a unified path forward. Obviously this is all a rather subjective thing, but Linux runs fine on my desktop for a long time already.