The Linux community has an excuse for that though… They keep using the excuse that Linux isn’t preinstalled and that’s why Linux adoption on the desktop is in single digit market share.
Now if Linux was so superior to Window like has been claimed and was indeed so easy to install, and it was able to be compatible with a variety of hardware and run all the software that one needs, then installing it on a PC would hardly stop computer nerds from doing it. But most of us don’t bother because the advantages aren’t worth the hassle.
That argument falls a bit with the Steam Deck. Linux is preinstalled and most people don’t change the OS. On the other hand it’s purpose is also pretty specific, so it isn’t an issue if Adobe’s softwares works etc.
But people are happy with ChromeOS, which is limited but preinstalled. So I do believe preinstalling makes and fails an OS. It’s not even worth it for some car manufacturers to have different skews for chair heating, so it’s not surprising that pc/laptops don’t come with choices between different OS.
I’m happy with Linux, but I don’t think most people want what Linux gives them. Most people just want to stop using it and do something fun.
What would it take for Linux to run all the hardware and software it needs? Companies need to make develop for Linux. In order for that to happen, Linux needs market share to make it profitable for them. But in order for Linux to gain market share, it needs to run all the hardware and software it needs. So in other words in order to get market share, Linux needs market share. How does it do that without being preinstalled on devices?
You are missing the most important issue:
WHY
Why would anyone want to waste their time with Linux when WIndows works perfectly fine?
They would for the same reason they use Linux on their Chromebooks, Android phones, Pixel watches, Steam Decks or TrueNAS server. It’s pre-installed. Why do you think that argument is an “excuse” is my question.
