I love the Windows people who pay for it and enjoy the simplicity of it for what it provides.

Simplicity? I haven't used Windows in at least 20 years, but I do pay attention on what's happening with Windows, and every time a new version comes out there's a huge number of people complaining about how much the UI has changed and how they hate what MS has done. The only times I can remember that happening in Linux are all of the complaints about systemd (I don't like it either, but I learned how to use it because I understood that there was no turning back and my complaints would just be ignored.) and what happened when Gnome 3 came out. I too didn't like it because it needed far more resources than I could dedicate to it and it made it difficult, if not impossible to set my desktop up to look and work the way I wanted. In my case, I did a bit of looking around and when it officially came out I could ignore it because I had already migrated to Xfce, a lightweight DE that made it easy to do things how I wanted, not how the devs thought I should.

Judging only by what you wrote, you seem to think that any distro that has a built-in way to avoid dependency hell is using training wheels.

<AOL>Me Too!</AOL>

Some of us prefer this because we don't feel the need to have training wheels on our OS.

I've tried linux on my spouse's machine. It is not a desktop OS that my family can use.

What is it about Linux that you and your family find unsatisfactory? Are there proprietary Windows-only programs that you can't get to run under Linux or programs you need for work/school that won't install, or do you Just Not Like Linux? I ask because I do like Linux and have been using it as my only desktop/laptop OS for over two decades now and would like to understand better just why you don't.

I sure like using it that way! I've told Windows users about the cube, and even shown them but AFAIK, not one of them has set their computer up that way, even though Windows lets you have multiple virtual desktops, although not as a cube. They tell me that they "just don't see the point."

Do you have any objective evidence to back up your assertion? Just because some stranger on the Internet insists that something is true, doesn't make it so. And yes, that includes my claims as well.

Indeed they are. I use the Desktop Cube with Rotate Cube and people find that very impressive. I also have Show Mouse and find it quite useful to turn on when something's happened and you can't see just where the mouse is.

...you might ask instead why we're still waiting for the Year of the Linux Desktop...

One big reason for that is that the meaning "the year of the Linux desktop" has changed. Back when the expression was coined, it meant the year when Linux was good enough for the average computer user to use it as their OS without needing regular intervention from a tech support guru just to keep it working and up to date. From my POV, that came almost a quarter of a century ago, but by that time, it had mutated to mean the year that Linux overtook Windows as a desktop OS. Will that ever happen? I can't say, but I'd think that the more MS treats their customers as a resource to be exploited he more likely it is to happen. I do know that I've migrated two middle aged women to Xubuntu at their request and they've been very happy with it ever since. I also showed a high school girl running Linux Mint what Compiz can do, and then told her how to install it. Once she knew that it was available from her software store, she was able to install it, have it run at login and configure it without asking one more question. I'd say that Linux is ready and more than ready for the average (bear) user to use as their Daily Driver and as far as market share, I'd think that the fact that its percentage of desktop use speaks for itself.

Funny, workers were quite productive on six day weeks back in the 40s and 50s when that was the norm. It wasn't until the 60s or so when regular workers started getting five day weeks, largely because of union efforts. Now, five day weeks are normal and workers feel put upon if they're asked to work six in an emergency.

It's their choice; they can either take a pay cut or start working at the office again. If the money means that much to them they'll come back to the office. Of course, that means that they'll be spending at least part of that money on their commute but probably not all of it. And, if they quit, that won't look good when they're interviewing for a next job along with the fact that since they quit, they aren't eligible for Unemployment.

I don't think you understood my post. I'm not saying that any companies are currently docking paychecks going to people who WFH and I'm not (exactly) saying that they should. I'm suggesting that CEOs are going to start seeing this as a way to get employees back to the office. And, although I didn't mention it before, I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that some people would be willing to have their pay docked if it meant that they didn't have to commute any more.

Personally I'm waiting for some creative CEO to start using that fact to get people back to the office. Consider what would happen if your wages were restructured so that a percentage was allocated as compensation for your commute. As long as you're in the office every day, nothing changes. Yes, you can WFM, but if you do, you don't get that part of your wages for that day. Legal? Probably. Popular with the staff? Hell no! Would it get people back in the office? Some of them, probably; how many is anybody's guess.

And War is Peace, and Freedom is Slavery.

Giving people money for marrying is no different from fining people for not being married in the end.

No. The default result of a marriage is that one person continues to work and the other stays home and takes care of it. That means that one income is now supporting two people, and that's what the tax break is intended to address.