The issue isn't that Linux lacks proprietary applications. Its that Linux development focuses on apps that appeal to people who write code and this means Linux has a highly technical userbase that prefers open source software.
If Linux desktops had a critical mass of users that were willing to buy proprietary software, the proprietary software companies would make Linux software for the same reason that game development companies make games for Nintendo's underpowered gaming hardware if it sells well (but don't if it ends up flopping like the Wii U).
To get to that critical mass, Linux desktop needs something that Mac and Windows don't offer that appeals to the average non-technical computer user. The single best opportunity for Linux was when Microsoft came out with Windows 8 with its awful new "Metro" interface. If a Linux distro had a GUI that was at least as good as Windows 7, out of the box support for Windows applications, drivers that just work and major OEMs willing to sell it preinstalled at the time, it would have drawn Windows users. Right now, thanks to Valve's efforts at getting Windows games to run on Linux, the Steam Deck is likely to be the most commercially successful GNU+Linux computer ever made because it can run most of your Windows Steam library and gaming is the main reason consumers buy Windows these days (the needs of low end consumers who just want to read email and be spied on by Facebook are best served with an iPad or Chromebook).
Linux is, on the surface, a much more appealing platform than iOS or Android for developers because there's no monopoly app store taking a 30% cut and demanding you take features out of your software. Its also more appealing than Mac because there's no Gatekeeper program that you have to take extra steps to get around. Developers tolerate these practices because the users are on those platforms and especially because Apple products tend to sell to wealthier people who are more willing to spend money on software than Android or Windows users (let alone Linux users who are generally believers in open source and some of whom are "free software" advocates who agree with RMS's views on the immorality of proprietary software). Ultimately, software companies will go where the users are. Platforms don't have to cater to them. They have to attract the users which forces the software companies to release their software for the platform. When you focus on making a platform that appeals to software companies instead of users, you end up with the Epic Games Store which has lots of software but few users.
As a highly technical person that writes code, does media, and fixes high-level computer networks and essential systems, the last thing I want is to have to dig into mysterious config files and have to debug every little thing that goes wrong with installing a piece of software. I can give up a certain degree of control and customization in exchange for a stable operating system and desktop environment that lets me get my work done. This is why I use macOS for the desktop.
This. If my entire workflow were codewriting, I'd be thrilled to go over to a Linux desktop and never look back. Unfortunately about 30% of my work is dependent on being able to work with assets in Adobe formats (including compiling and maintaining older Air apps). On top of that, one thing that "just works" on the Mac is peripheral setup. Audio interfaces, Wacom tablets, printers... plug and play. I'm
not sure I could make every peripheral I use work under Ubuntu, but even researching it quickly turns into a days long quest on various vendors' message boards. On the other hand I am deeply, deeply angry about what Apple is doing, and I'm not going to buy any new Apple hardware unless they reverse course on this privacy violation. If I have to deal with all the headaches of Linux and keep an old Apple around just for compiling old stuff or recording music, so be it.
[edit] I'd like to add that my private devices have been exclusively on Mac since the Mac SE around 1992, my company is exclusively on Mac, my clients buy Macs for internal use because we write their internal apps for them, and overall I've been responsible for purchasing somewhere around 100 Macs. I know they don't care and have never cared about my opinion as a customer, but their interests aligned with mine. Now they appear not to.
Amen to this. I fell in love with the Mac in 2007 after literally hating the company for the prior 17 years due to a weird form of PTSD from having to make that chatty bastard AppleTalk behave on corporate networks.
I became a convert because it just worked. I didn’t need to constantly mess with it to keep it running well. So well that my 2008 MBP lasted until 2018 until the battery swelled and cracked the case. I’m now 3 years into a MBA and this will prob carry me through to retirement.
Actually with a modern Ubuntu like 20.04 there are not many issues at all. With 14.04 and 16.04, yes, it could be a bit rough with some graphics issues with some Java based programs, drivers etc.
Comparing Ubuntu 20.04 with my wife's Macbook Air M1 I do not see any differences in ease of use.
Just like XP was the best time with toy's are us UI, Vista was the best time due to DX 10 being Vista only, 7 was the best time for whatever reason I cannot remember anymore,...
Now Windows 11 will again be the best reason to migrate, and nothing will change yet again.
If Linux desktops had a critical mass of users that were willing to buy proprietary software, the proprietary software companies would make Linux software for the same reason that game development companies make games for Nintendo's underpowered gaming hardware if it sells well (but don't if it ends up flopping like the Wii U).
To get to that critical mass, Linux desktop needs something that Mac and Windows don't offer that appeals to the average non-technical computer user. The single best opportunity for Linux was when Microsoft came out with Windows 8 with its awful new "Metro" interface. If a Linux distro had a GUI that was at least as good as Windows 7, out of the box support for Windows applications, drivers that just work and major OEMs willing to sell it preinstalled at the time, it would have drawn Windows users. Right now, thanks to Valve's efforts at getting Windows games to run on Linux, the Steam Deck is likely to be the most commercially successful GNU+Linux computer ever made because it can run most of your Windows Steam library and gaming is the main reason consumers buy Windows these days (the needs of low end consumers who just want to read email and be spied on by Facebook are best served with an iPad or Chromebook).
Linux is, on the surface, a much more appealing platform than iOS or Android for developers because there's no monopoly app store taking a 30% cut and demanding you take features out of your software. Its also more appealing than Mac because there's no Gatekeeper program that you have to take extra steps to get around. Developers tolerate these practices because the users are on those platforms and especially because Apple products tend to sell to wealthier people who are more willing to spend money on software than Android or Windows users (let alone Linux users who are generally believers in open source and some of whom are "free software" advocates who agree with RMS's views on the immorality of proprietary software). Ultimately, software companies will go where the users are. Platforms don't have to cater to them. They have to attract the users which forces the software companies to release their software for the platform. When you focus on making a platform that appeals to software companies instead of users, you end up with the Epic Games Store which has lots of software but few users.