Not monotonous but non-creative. Any machine can do non-crative work. No machine can do creative work. You don’t need creativity to farm food, you do need creativity to invent new medicine.

In an average company that isn’t scaled worldwide, usually the cost of labour is 40-50% (paying wages). This means if we replace humans with robots, doing repetitive and non-creative work, we can make stuff cheaper by a lot. OFC unless the company boss, who is then left alone with all the profits, just decides to keep the prices with no people he needs to pay anymore.

“Default” is basically Ubuntu. By “default” I mean you can use most things without needing to ever think about which desktop environment do I have, which package manager I have etc… it “just works”. It is very bad for average Joe if it says “Linux app” and then you can’t install it using apt because it’s available only in another package manager.

It looks like you can’t install Linux apps onto Linux. What kind of message does that send to the broad consumer market?

It’s not the use case I am referring to - I am speaking about modern day games. As long as Linux is ignored by the gaming companies making AAA titles, it will never be a real option for the entire gaming community. An average gamer doesn’t know nor want to spend time setting up everything and hoping nothing breaks when the OS/layer/game gets the next update. It should be “Install” and then play without ever really thinking about any underlying tech.

1. Game studios support - most games don’t support Linux natively (and no, I don’t want compatibility layer upon layer).
2. “Default” Linux distribution for average consumers. Average consumers don’t want 2000 distro choices as they will rather stick to one Windows that having to think between many Linux distros and pick one.
3. The “default” Linux needs to have the consumer-marketing name of simply “Linux OS”.