...about the "year of Linux desktop" never happening because it that has already happened, if you look at things from different perspectives.
There is a case to be made that this past year, 2012, is the "year of Linux on the desktop" in a sense. When you factor in mobile devices, in this past quarter, Android computing devices shipped in higher numbers than Windows computing devices (NT-kernel based and otherwise) INCLUDING THE TRADITIONAL PC. So, when you set your phone or tablet on a desk at least, Linux has finally triumphed. One thing is for sure--if it isn't the year of the Linux DESKTOP it is certainly the year of Linux PERSONAL COMPUTING.
Some might say the desktop was conquered by Linux much earlier. When a user sits at a desktop how long is it before that user opens a browser and uses Google to search or Facebook to, well, waste time I guess. Sure, most of those desktops booted into Windows by a large measure, but it was a mere shell--a runtime container for the web app that is Google or Facebook, and both would not be possible without Linux. So at a differnt level, Linux is already master of the desktop.
Still think that the above arguments are valid, and think that a Linux Desktop is nothing less than a full sized PC on a desk that boots into a Linux OS and hndles the full software stack? Well then maybe that is a cause not worth fighting for. Something is pretty evident here: It would be wrong for Linux advocates to dwell excessively on "the desktop". Though "the desktop" will never disappear completely it is clearly a mature, stagnant segment of the global computing ecosystem that is only going to become less dominant over time. As such, conquering the desktop is not the path to conquering the computing world. It might be important to you, but you are not a normal computer user. Indeed, very few slashdotters are. I am certainly not a normal computer user that is for sure. Your comments very much reveal that"
I've been using Linux full time for 5 years (since the Windows Vista calamity) and it wasn't until Ubuntu ruined their distro with Unity that I had to hop to another one
To me it looks like you are a "power user"--comfortable with computers enough but don't cope well with change. My guess is that you were satisfied with WinXP but circumstances forced you onto Vista (your old PC was too outdated to run the more contemporary bloatware, or broke down, etc and you needed a new machine, and they all came with Vista by then). There was definitely a time for many where it was acually easier to obtain and install Linux than get a legal downgrade to XP so you were motivated to go to Ubuntu. Then Ubunti changed (or got "ruined" for you), and so you picked the most conservative one out there--Debian--in an effort to resist change. But you don't have the stomach to use any "unstable" packages to support more recent hardware so you went to the next mode conservative community distro. I do see the pattern here.
There are distros and desktops out there for you. You could go back to Debian--I would suggest "testing" though (don't be scared of the name--by Debian's standards "testing" is more stable than an LTS release of Ubuntu). I can already tell you would NOT like GNOME 3--even if it was brilliant it is too different from that win95 era design pattern for you--so be sure to use XFCE and you will be right at home. Apart from that Linux Mint is another good OS--and Cinnamon or MATE are old-school enough in their design to work for the "traditionalists" among us. I like them anyways...
The puzzling thing is that you spout off all these old problems--can't get metworking going, cant get sound going, can't get video going blah blah. These are not the challenged they were 5 years ago, and even 5 years ago they were not such huge problems aside from wireless and bleeding-edge video chipsets. These days it isn't a challenge to find Linux-friendly hardware--if you have such challenges it indicates you did little to nothing in terms of validating the availabiliy of Linux drivers for your hardware before purchase. The solution for that can be easy--buy an actual Linux PC (System 7, ZaReason, etc) where the vendor has made sure all the important bits work and even install the OS for you--kind of like Apple and all Microsoft vendors do, right?
A couple of other comments I have:
my Mac Mini should be delivered on Monday
I fear you may eventually become disenchanted. The Mac will "just work" because of course the hardware and software are under the full control of a single, rather domineering vendor. Don't be too fast to buy upgraded OSes--Apple is making the move towards a more iPad-like experience recently. Apple has much more control over your experience than you might be used to so you will only be satisfied as long as they do what you like. This is not the case with Linux--the Free software ecosystem is diverse enough that there is someone out there that caters to your tastes more closely.
installing and configuring Oracle Java is a nightmare
That is a characteristic of Java, not the OS on which it is installed. My spouse has a Mac. Oracle's Java is not nice on it either. Java is unpleasant, unstable and insecure and unsuitable for desktop applications now. The only future it has is its legacy on the server side and its non-Oracle descendant Dalvik that forms the basis of the Android userland. Then solution isn't ditching Linux--indeed Java will frustrate you on a Mac too--the solution is to find alternatives to Java applications at all practical costs.
And if you think that people are going to accept a totally stripped-bare 100% pure distro the likes of which Richard Stallman would use, then it's game over (though it's probably been game over for years, now).
Stallman is a very special case that goes way beyond normal and extends to the hardware he uses (he does not use the WWW the way we do, and he goes to extreme lengths to make sure schematics are available for his hardware and so on). He is an idealist and refreshingly honest, if rather disagreeable to many. I am comforted that he goes to the effort he does to practice what he preaches. RMS has made it his purpose in life to defend Free software's ideals, not to commercialise it or maximise market share. That is not to say RMS wouldn't like to see GNU/Linux take over the world, but he has not made that his task. Indeed, if a Linux OS became dominant by abandoning Free software ideals the RMS would be front and centre in the effort to bring it down.
So it is up to the pragmatists to popularise Linux by striking the right compromise--RMS and Shuttleworth act as checks and balances against each other for example. And yes, it is "game over" or nearly so, but as I stated earlier I think Linux has won.