Linux has a sort of "usability gap"
- It can be great for very basic users who just want web, email and - for their uses - will barely notice the difference between LibreOffice and MS. Esp. if an experienced person sets it up and locks it down. Increasingly, they're doing everything in the browser anyway.
- It can be great for super-users and developers because everything is customisable, scriptable, hackable up the wazoo, and editing a text config file is the best configuration tool ever... The GUI is a bit pants, but real users use bash/zsh/etc.
- In between, there's tends to be a vertical learning curve between the basics and slightly more advanced stuff.
Another yawning gap seems to be the lack of mid-range graphics software - basic photo sorting/viewing seems OK but for everything else there's... that package that you can't even name in polite company which is very powerful but has a sociopathic UI. Or, for vector, Inkscape which is... easier than writing hand-crafted SVG.
Then there's the bewildering array of desktop environments which range from the nonsense 'stuff the users - we have a theoretical model' that is Gnome to the lightweight 'I just want to tile a bunch of instances of vim and xterm' options. 150% scaling for 4k displays seems to be a lottery, too. Cinnamon seems vaguely sane but, realistically, Linux developers don't really seem to "get" GUIs and my usual Linux experience is ssh into bash/zsh from a Mac...