First, define what that phrase means? Do you mean the year it's viable as a legit alternative for most stuff or the year Linux will be the most used Desktop?
However you define it, it's not 2017 because that's not a LTS year. Chances are, the "year of the Linux desktop" has already come and gone if you don't define "The year Linux got DX10-12 in Wine with all future games aimed at Linux first, Linux got Adobe and Cubase", that year won't be 2017, hell, it won't even be 2018 for the next LTS and I doubt that will be 2020 for the LTS after that. But does that even really mater?
Anyway, for me, the year of the Linux Desktop was 2010 because 10.04 was the peak of Gnome 2 and DX9 was very well supported by Developers, so most things ran in Wine, so we really didn't need a Steam for Linux. But, I think the year of Kdenlive being a mature editor is either here already or will be soon and the year of Gimp not sucking will be "when it's ready".
it doesn't matter, no. i understand the enthusiasm people have for it, and who knows. maybe one day we'll look back on now like people look back on IBM's monopoly on PC business [guess what i've been watching lately.] and muse fondly. or we could all be atomised tomorrow by nuclear war.
FIrstly, not a word Secondly, The sheer explosive power of a nuclear bomb is not the most devastating thing about nuclear war. Thirdly, "Always look on the bright side of life"
Ugh. I'm probably going to regret this since all of these threads turn into retarded pissing matches with little to no actual debate or discussion and you've already proven yourself to be extremely pedantic but I'll try.
Firstly, it depends on what your definition of mostly is. I'd argue not being able to game or edit videos is a pretty major detriment as that is what a lot of people use their PCs for. Otherwise, I'd argue productivity in terms of office software or for photo editing really isn't their either. Also simply ease of use or when using most hardware. Most stuff works but a lot still doesn't and even what does isn't as good or as simple/nice to use. Just because their is software that does broadly the same thing or even the same task doesn't mean it is a proper alternative. Especially if it is hard/obtuse to use or has no broader support. The community also needs improvement. Linux can't community or, more accurately, properly converse with newcomers. Maybe it will learn.
Problem is a fair amount of the hardcore Linux users on here are just that or computer guys who are into/like that kind of stuff. It is very hard for them to see the broader perspective or what others outside the Linux bubble see/experience. Linux is really not a good choice for most people on the desktop. It really brings nothing to the table for most people. So majority adoption on desktops? Most likely never.