If I use Windows, I get a certain familiar desktop. I can change the colors and the wallpaper, but that is about it.
But in the Linux world, if I like a minimalistic appearance and the Gnome shell model, I use Gnome. If I want a powerful desktop that I can configure a lot, I choose KDE/Plasma. If I want something lightweight, there are plenty of choices.
And why are there different distros like Manjaro, KDE Neon, Ubuntu, Fedora? This is somewhat orthognal, but they all have important differences.
I don't think one "Desktop Linux" could give me the breadth of choices that multiple desktop environments can. If they were to merge and make one big enviroment, that would have to be really good because it is competing with Windows and macOS.
I used to use Gnome, but since Linux is moving in the direction you describe and homogenizing under the hood (see systemd for example), I found that current desktop Linux is no longer the radical different OS - it is just an inferior alternative Windows (for me personally, at this point in time!).
But in the Linux world, if I like a minimalistic appearance and the Gnome shell model, I use Gnome. If I want a powerful desktop that I can configure a lot, I choose KDE/Plasma. If I want something lightweight, there are plenty of choices.
And why are there different distros like Manjaro, KDE Neon, Ubuntu, Fedora? This is somewhat orthognal, but they all have important differences.
I don't think one "Desktop Linux" could give me the breadth of choices that multiple desktop environments can. If they were to merge and make one big enviroment, that would have to be really good because it is competing with Windows and macOS.
I used to use Gnome, but since Linux is moving in the direction you describe and homogenizing under the hood (see systemd for example), I found that current desktop Linux is no longer the radical different OS - it is just an inferior alternative Windows (for me personally, at this point in time!).