I see. You are happy with your PC running Linux. Good for you. I guess you wouldn't be much happier with a much larger software library of professional-grade software. Or UI that is actually designed, not thrown together by developers who think they know design. Or play video games. Or have first-grade graphic drivers, etc. Guess what, until Linux becomes relevant, or "favoured", it would be stuck in this horrible state of bad UI and ugly ugly software.
Okay, fair point. However, this fact is also true of any operating system. Macs were, for a long time (still?) the go to desktop for creative designers for their good media editing software. Adobe favoured Mac OS over Windows for many years, and this shows in the UI designs in the likes of Photoshop. I'm a professional software developer, and most of my home/work projects can be done on either Windows or Linux. This might not be the case for many people, but it is for me, which is why I use Linux.
FWIW, I think you're concept of "bad UI and ugly ugly software" in Linux is outdated. Check out the Linux desktops threads and the likes of new Ubuntu or Elementary OS for a better picture of modern Linux. Things are much more pleasing to the eye these days.
I think I was a little hyperbolic with this statement. What I should have said was:
"Many of the people that I know who use Linux on a regular basis find it to be a perfectly viable operating system, and they do not really seek it to be the #1 operating system. The fact that it works for them is enough. The majority of people I hear/read making statements like "2013 will be the year of Linux on the desktop" are the clueless fanatics, or the haters whose only argument against Linux is that it has a minor market share".
For most people, 'capable' isn't enough. As an analogy: yes, many Android handsets are capable of having a full, clean install of the latest releases of Android, but the process is absolutely unacceptable from a UX pov. 'Capability' is a poor gauge of viability.
A head-on example is file management. For better or worse, Windows--following DOS tradition--has an extremely simplistic approach to arranging files across various drives. Each partition of each drive is assigned a top-level label that's been easy to find for over 25 years. Linux, and Unix-style OSes in general, have a much harsher learning curve to navigating storage. The root (/) doesn't fall into an easily visualized, human-friendly structure. The tree is inexplicably literal and virtual and relational in no apparent pattern to the newcomer. Desktops have gone to great lengths to hide everything behind a combination of libraries and--as if an admission of what the top level SHOULD be--drives and their partitions.
Recorded history shows a time when there was a movement to evolve *nix file management to something that could truly compete with DOS's simplicity, just to have the effort shunned and shelved. Whatever reasons were behind the rejection, the effect has undeniably been years of frustration and annoyance at an OS that seems obsessed with unnecessary complexity and apocryphal design.
File management doesn't irritate anyone on Android thanks to the fact that, out of the box, file management is from a simple directory structure within each mount point, no different from Windows, never exposing a user to the nightmare lurking at /.
To carry with your example, as I replied to Dr_Asik, the Unix file system is a philosophical choice. Personally, I mostly prefer it to a Windows file system. The way a Unix system mounts drives allows me to have an entire directory as a separate partition. So this means that I can (and do) have my /home directory (Unix equivalent to C:\Users) on a different drive. This means that I can reinstall my entire OS
, and at the end simply remount the /home partition and get all my files and settings back. There are rough hacks to do similar things in Windows, but the results are uncomparable to simply mounting a drive inside a folder.
The Unix directory structure stems from the idea that very little can be assumed about the state of the system. It's a file system that scales from single user machines right to thin clients and dumb terminals. This is a disadvantage on the desktop because, as you rightly said, it complicates things, and it results in having to search different directories for files that should be kept together. I find the likes of /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin to be an annoyance, why are there four directories for binaries? But then at the same time, how is Windows any better? We already have two directories for Program Files, and to make things worse, it's possible to install a 64-bit application into Program Files (x86) (and vice versa) without issue!
Peripheral media does pose a problem for the Unix-style abstract file system, although most distros have this solved. Most (all?) Linux equivalents to Explorer can see external storage just fine as devices that are mounted in the /media directory (or in the case for Arch /run/media/Majesticmerc), this still isn't as easy to use as the Windows C/D/E/etc, but it's largely a solved problem these days.
If we're getting into a discussion on the specific flaws of file system structure though, what about the cluster**** that is Windows application settings? First you have to determine if settings are kept in the registry or a file. If it's in the registry, where abouts? HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE? HKEY_CURRENT_USER? What about if it's a file. It could be in: C:\ProgramData, C:\Users\Me\AppData\Local, C:\Users\Me\AppData\LocalLow, C:\Users\Me\AppData\Roaming, C:\Program Files\ApplicationName\, etc, etc. Conversely, in Linux, config files are either kept in /home/me, home/me/.config, or home/me/.ApplicationName; that's it. Oh, and /etc for system-wide configuration.
It's funny that you should mention Android, as the Android File system is a complete mess as it stands. It's one of my biggest criticisms against the platform. It's a completely arbitrary mess. I can very rarely find something in there without using a search tool. My phone keeps it's photos in ~/mnt/DCIM/MEDIA100, and my ~/mnt/DCIM/Camera folder remains empty. Incidentally, the only reason the Android filesystem can work the way it does is because of the way that Unix filesystems can be mounted arbitrarily. Android users are locked out of the system root directory (/), and everything actually happens in the pre-installed user's home directory. External SD cards are actually mounted as directories inside your home folder. This is why all the great Android mods require rooting, in order to gain access to the system root partition and overwrite system files.
All that said though, the way people choose to perceive a file system is very much a matter of taste. the Unix filesystem carries a lot of legacy crud as baggage, but at the same time much of the filesystem makes a lot of sense once you realise what directories files are kept in, and more importantly, it's consistent
That is of course only my opinion, and you are free to disagree