Your slip is showing.
And so is yours.
That you had to list 6 GUIs for Linux tells us that none of them are very good (despite the thickly caked-on makeup)
No, those 6 GUIs are called "choices." One of the greatest things about Linux is that if you don't some something about Linux, you can change it. If you don't like an application, or even the look and feel of an entire desktop, just install a different one.
and the Linux fans who normally promote and critique them scarcely know what they even are.
Really? How the hell do you know what somebody else does or doesn't know? I know lots of Linux fans who have tried multiple desktops, and what Linux calls "Window Managers," myself included.
Every computer expert wants good interfaces--whether they be in software or hardware--and its a constant concern for us.
If that's such a concern, then Windows 8 just screwed you.
But by definition, a computer interface (in an API, machined metal, etc.) must remain consistent...
Really? Windows 3.1, Windows 95, Windows 7, and Windows 8 are consistent? Dude, you need to get a better dictionary.
Linux fans insist on good contract-like interfaces for the technically adept, even though this is the demographic that can most comfortably deal with system changes. But when it comes to user interfaces, all bets are off.
Bullshit. Put a Windows user with an open mind in front of KDE or Gnome, and they'll feel right at home. They'll have a "Start button", a system tray, toolbars, familiar window controls, and more.
Furthermore, who can say if there is any Desktop Linux that rates as a real OS?
Anybody with an open mind that actually tries it, that's who.
I am sometimes reminded by the fans that the textbook description of an operating system doesn't even include a user interface.
So what's your point? Windows servers, Linux, UNIX (and probably more) can run without a GUI. But that has nothing to do with your "argument."
Another should be that if a novice user decides to try programming lots of high-level features using tools that came with the OS, they should be able to create a single executable file or appfolder that can be easily run without gotchas... ie a predictable runtime environment.
What are the chances of this happening successfully?
Do you even know how to make a point that has merit? In what world would a "novice user" ever try "programming high-level features?"
Now, tell me why people aren't lining up to write great apps for "Desktop Linux".
They are. The "application manager" or "package manager" in most flavors of Linux contains tens of thousands of software packages. Granted, many of them of "utility libraries" that are used by multiple applications, but there are still many, many free applications to choose from. Just check out how many apps are listed at http://linuxappfinder.com./
Tell me why we (former advocate here) can't even give this sh#t away.
What rock have you been living under? I guess you've never heard of Ubuntu.
As for having "lowered" the usability bar... *chuckle* One raises the bar when something is made better.
And you think Windows is "better?" Was Windows ME better? What about Windows Vista? And is forcing a touch-screen interface onto desktops (a.k.a., Windows 8) better than Windows 7? Perhaps you should buy a new dictionary.
If it has syntax, it isn't user friendly.