This is my concern with all those "success" stories about Linux as an enterprise desktop OS. Run it for 10 years and show me the actual cost savings/improved productivity.

Microsoft is trash and is getting worse day by day, but at the very least it's the same trash everyone has to deal with, so people mostly got used to the smell, and you can get economies of scale in tools used to deal with said smell. MS is trash because of incompetence.

Linux is dozens of different flavors of trash, so you don't even get economies of scale dealing with it. It's trash because of ideology - the people involved would often reject the functionality you mentioned for ideological reasons, and even for those who do accept them, won't agree on the implementation meaning you now have a dozen of different flavors, and will take up arms if someone tries to unify things (just look at the reaction to systemd).

Linux works well for careers where shoveling trash is already part of your work, in which case all the effort doubles as training for the job and experience makes this a non-issue. But for non-IT careers where the computer is just a tool that is expected to work properly, it's nowhere near there, and will never get there because everyone's instead arguing on the definition of "there" and which mode of transportation to use getting there.

Google gave its employees a Linux laptop option for well more than 10 years, but in the past few years they started steering everyone away from it, before formally announcing they want to scale it back.

This is despite them being a tech company, and despite them having already invested in their single Linux flavor (gLinux). Wayland migration was also a pain.