The challenge of Desktop Linux is that it's not a product, it's a project.
Ubuntu is a very successful desktop Linux distro. It's pleasant to use and very modern. Nerds might hate it because Unity doesn't fall in line with Linux "the project" so much as its there to make Ubuntu "the product" better.
Overall, desktop linux as an overarching product failed, but so did mobile linux pre-android, but Android isn't so much mobile linux as it is Android.
Open source is a bit like herding cats and if you don't have a real product you are trying to ship, devs will scratch their own itch.
I agree with everything except for the past tense "failed". I would use the (pause while I look this up) present perfect. Linux has failed on the desktop so far, but with influence from Android platforms and the availability of cross-platform dev tools like Java, Qt, Tk, and crap-in-browsers, it may yet succeed. I work on a desktop application for Windows and OSX and at least 80% of my development I can do on my Linux machine.
EDIT: meant to stick this in - really to capture the desktop market, Linux only needs to emulate or simulate WinXP functionality. For most users, Win7 only adds gimcrackery.
> at least 80% of my development I can do on my Linux machine.
That's the whole problem right there. The remaining 20% are all the desktop-integration features and UI polish that is not cross-platform, but which makes the difference between a run-o'-the mill app and a great one. And OSX does raise the bar quite high for the latter.
Ubuntu is a very successful desktop Linux distro. It's pleasant to use and very modern. Nerds might hate it because Unity doesn't fall in line with Linux "the project" so much as its there to make Ubuntu "the product" better.
Overall, desktop linux as an overarching product failed, but so did mobile linux pre-android, but Android isn't so much mobile linux as it is Android.
Open source is a bit like herding cats and if you don't have a real product you are trying to ship, devs will scratch their own itch.