Thank you for explaining why the Linux Desktop is a giant usability failure and how 'defining' Linux support is an impossibility.
Rather than be able to support ONE operating system 100% of the time like what you get with Windows and macOS, Desktop Linux support is an unnecessary M * N support matrix of distros, packages and desktop environments and you always end up having to select a chosen few; meaning you always anger a bunch of Linux users using exotic distros (even though they run Desktop 'Linux').
Linux packaging is beyond a dreadful disaster of in-fighting and a malestrom of frustration and confusion for the user who dares to bother. Majority of the software on Linux is still shockingly distributed via ridiculous .tar.bz2 files or requires opening a terminal to ./ execute it, if not then it is either the alternatives of AppImage, Snap, FlatPak, etc, etc which don't work on all systems out of the box. They are still solutions looking for a problem.
With Windows, and macOS packaging for them is already built into the OS and works consistently and natively as expected. A problem long solved by them but on Desktop Linux it is still an issue for a quarter of a century.
You're welcome to look at the Linux situation that way if you choose to, but claiming that Windows and macOS packaging works consistently and natively is a huge stretch of the imagination.
I had to install a Windows system the other day, and it was frustrating. For the most part, software had to be scavenged from various websites. Some of those sites felt less than reputable while others were avoided because they were less than reputable. Once I managed to download the installer from the developer, I found that they were rarely consistent. While most appeared to be some sort of wrapper for MSI, many were not. The user interfaces and procedures varied wildly, even with software from Microsoft themselves. On top of that, I had two drivers that were shipped as a zipped collection of files. In the case of my printer drivers, I had to run an executable file buried in one of the subfolders. In the case of the USB-RS232 bridge drivers, I had to call up the properties dialog in the device manager to update the drivers.
I am not going to deny the kernel truth in your claims about Linux. Installing software can be a mess. On the other hand, I rarely have to face that truth. Almost everything is handled by the package manager. In the case of hardware, the drivers are usually built into the kernel. The end result is that software tends to be faster and easier to install and update on Linux. At least from my experience.
Rather than be able to support ONE operating system 100% of the time like what you get with Windows and macOS, Desktop Linux support is an unnecessary M * N support matrix of distros, packages and desktop environments and you always end up having to select a chosen few; meaning you always anger a bunch of Linux users using exotic distros (even though they run Desktop 'Linux').
Linux packaging is beyond a dreadful disaster of in-fighting and a malestrom of frustration and confusion for the user who dares to bother. Majority of the software on Linux is still shockingly distributed via ridiculous .tar.bz2 files or requires opening a terminal to ./ execute it, if not then it is either the alternatives of AppImage, Snap, FlatPak, etc, etc which don't work on all systems out of the box. They are still solutions looking for a problem.
With Windows, and macOS packaging for them is already built into the OS and works consistently and natively as expected. A problem long solved by them but on Desktop Linux it is still an issue for a quarter of a century.