Isn’t it actually delusional to believe in developers having a huge incentive to back Linux?

I know the general arguments by the Linux community regarding the (compared to Windows) cleaner architecture (no registry nightmare), much simpler kernel API (POSIX standard + a few additions), space benefits (mostly due to a lack of bloatware) and non-enforced updates (allowing you to wait and see if the release is actually stable).

For server admins setting up reliable and lightweight docker containers without having to actually *develop* for Linux, the OS is indeed ideal.

However I imagine if you're on the other side of things and need to write as well as test software for all those different distributions out there (we got the "big three" branches Debian, Fedora/RHEL/SUSE and Arch), then this will likely become a nightmare?

Even moreso if you're developing a UI, and (for a qualitative product) need to take two compositors (Wayland and X11) and at least the biggest two desktop environments (Gnome + Plasma) into account?

Then there's also some active file system development going on, with BTRFS likely replacing ext4 in the future… So you cannot even trust on a typical ext4 folder layout anymore (@home and @root are possible as well these days).

Regarding all of this, do we *really* consider Linux an OS that is attractive for solo developers / small to medium sized companies?

I'd argue this diversification is likely even the main reason why Linux struggles to get a foot on the ground in desktop computing…