I do use it as a drop-in replacement for Windows (and I don't use Mac). No dual-boot. So, I use Linux exclusively for everything I do.

That said, I 100% agree with the issue of fragmentation, that was raised by the author in the article. I spoke to a software developer one time, and he expressed frustration with the idea of developing software for Linux because of the need for different versions for different flavors of Linux.

That being said, there is a huge amount of different software made for Linux - in some ways even more than for other platforms. For example, want to program in just about any programming language? There's almost certainly a version of it for Linux. The same can not be said true of Mac or Windows. Another point supporting that is even with the different package managers around, pick just one - Synaptic for example - and browse it. There's probably a lot more available there, and for free, than there is reliable freeware for Mac or Windows.

Lastly, one thing the author did not consider mentioning was the relatively common usage of Ubuntu and Ubuntu-based distros. I don't have figures for this, but I have noticed when installing software, that if a software is made for Windows, Mac and Linux, instead of making 5 different Linux versions, some developers opt to make one Linux version, and in that case it's usually Ubuntu-compatible. So, I'm wondering if, over time, Ubuntu and Ubuntu-based distros will eventually become a sort of "standard" Linux for developers to develop for.

Linux is also wonderful for the other end of spectrum like grandparents, tech-illiterates, naive people, young kids, etc.. It's amazing how fast some people can get a windows install running like shit and/or infested with malware.

I am a Linus admirer but I also agree with the last sentence of the article that "Linux will never be a drop-in replacement for macOS or Windows."