Two Popular Distributions Release Development Milestones

While Linux distro's have come an amazing distance, and appeal greatly to the technically inclined crowd (myself included), Desktop Linux as a alternative to Windows has had well over a decade to catch up and be the true preferred OS, but due to misplaced priorities and poor quality has squandered it's chance at dominance. How many years has it been on the edge of being ready for mainstream usage. *nix(s) in my opinion have a superior design model, however due to developers insistence to add more buggy and gimmicky features rather than focus on performance and practicality, it will never measure up to it's potential. Another problem I have identified with the *nix(s) movement over the years are the zealots or fanboys who continue to discredit the OS in a misguided attempt to help it's adoption.
Zealots will argue points such as the performance of the OS being better than Windows through benchmarks of applications, not understanding that the performance of an application is largely dependent on the compiler, libraries, and talent of the coder when writing the software. When argued that the OS itself is faster they often point out the the obvious fact that yes the Linux kernel and GNU tool set by itself is faster than Windows, but how can a true comparison be made when there is no overhead of a GUI forming a complete experience on par with the competition. Also observed is the denial of the the responsiveness of the GUI of the X windows system coupled with the core distro. Any everyday computer user can notice the difference in responsiveness of the GUI when using X coupled with a comparable desktop (ask them) shell vs Windows, why do the evangelists deny the obvious, or fall back on a argument that it's not important? The purpose of the OS is just a platform for applications we need or want resulting in a goal, whether than be writing a essay or playing a game, etc. Granted it's a difficult argument due to design differences, X being designed around a networking model, and it being a independent entity, while Windows being more integrated with a simpler model. What's important from a personal perspective and I'm confident I'm not alone on this, is to accomplish what I desire to do quickly and efficiently. This is turning into an essay in itself and I realize is somewhat out of context to the article, however I felt compelled to express my opinion on the topic of the long time race of these two OS's. I also realize that it's biased despite my intent to remain objective. I haven't touched base on the faults of Microsofts OS, and it's drawbacks in a fair comparison, part of this is due to the fact that despite the pro's and cons, it is the dominate OS we use today. Regardless of what's fair, regardless of technical standpoints, Windows got to where it is from a culmination many factors, simply put.. survival of the fittest.
What may surprise you is, that if it was something I could change I would rather Linux be the mainstream OS we use today, why? Because I like it's Unix based design, it's modularity, it's portability, being able to customize my user experience. Despite my wishes, I use Windows, not for the sake of following the mass, but because I need a standard tool that my peers use as well so not only I can do what I need to do, but we can.
None of this is an attempt to start a flame war, none of it really matters for that fact, it's software, a grain of sand on the shore of life.

Anonymous....