> You could get a more stable experience by picking a distro by throwing darts at printout of distrowatch.
Great. How was I supposed to know that just under a decade ago when I first installed that? And I'm a programmer; how is any end-user supposed to know that? Ubuntu is one of the Linux distributions that has a lot of name recognition outside the Linux desktop community; you would assume anything based on it would also be fine.
So while I know that now, it doesn't change the fact that the Linux desktop has a messaging problem. Is it fixable? I have no idea. But it's not now; so come back when it is.
> bunch of loosely coupled projects DOES seem to be the cause of it being able to be a lot of different things to a lot of different people example different window managers, compositors
And that's my problem with it. It's too configurable. If that's what you want, then use Linux. But if you want to do real work? Then people use Windows, or macOS, and maybe in the future, hopefully Haiku.
> than linux in practice insofar as buggy behavior
We already support "thousands of different types of computers". Not sure what you're going after here.
> while still definitely being objectively worse insofar as not being modular.
Our kernel is actually more modular than the Linux kernel is; and in theory you could swap out other components too. But that's beside the point. Why is modularity some great ideal that everything should strive towards? It may be great in theory, but is it so in practice?