I've been using Linux since 2004, in various distros, exclusively as my desktop for any computer I own or control.

I nonetheless agree with you 100%.

Linux¹ is an OS that appeals to a very narrow spectrum of a very narrow subculture of people. As a desktop OS for the general public it is basically a disaster area. If video doesn't fuck you up, audio will, or Bluetooth, or networking, or any number of other sharp corners and rusty nails sticking out. You either get used to fixing these (and then never touching them ever again once solved ... and hope the next kernel update doesn't fuck you over!) or you get the joy of sifting through a myriad of subtly incorrect and/or out of date "help" articles online. (Documentation?! Don't make me laugh. You wouldn't like me when I laugh.)

There are a few reasons for this. Of these, one is out of the control of the Linux community. The rest are the Linux community's to fix, however. But they won't. (The reason for this is one of the items listed.)

• Manufacturers of hardware won't release the information needed to write drivers for their products, and won't commit to writing and maintaining good drivers of their own.
• The kernel has its ABI changed more often than, I suspect, an average kernel maintainer changes their underwear. (This contributes to why manufacturer drivers tend to drift into shit.)
• The development community is almost pathologically opposed to writing proper documentation. (Hint: reference documentation is not sufficient and never has been.)
• People who do write documentation (often third parties), are not supported in any way by those who don't: changes aren't checked against existing documentation and the latter updated, for example.
• There's a strong "it was hard for me to learn; it should be hard for everyone to learn!" vibe in the user community.
• There's also a strong element of denial in said user community: a lot of "works for me, so it must be your problem". The problem being with Linux is not considered seriously and, indeed, is strongly denied when mentioned as a possibility.
• Fixing complicated (albeit often entirely unnecessary) problems is literally addictive. A lot of users are addicted specifically to the dopamine hit of solving a complicated, if pointless, problem and thus don't see this as a problem. They expect other users to be similarly addicted.
• A lot of users view the computer's OS as the end, not the means to an end. This clashes with the viewpoint of users who just want their OS to get the fuck out of their way so they can work on their actual ends.

So why do I still use Linux, given all my negativity above?

• I do a lot of work with programming languages that most people haven't even seen used in anger. Many of these aren't supported under Windows in the first place; those which are tend not to be very well supported. Unix-like systems are the most common supported systems in that space.
• I really, really, really hate all the spying that gets done by commercial software and would rather deal with the problems that crop up using Linux than feeding a bunch of sociopathic billionaires even more data.
• This is probably the big one: I don't play computer games. I hate the fucking things enough without wanting them in my entertainment. Many of the problems that people have vanish into nothingness if you're not a gamer.
• I am a gigantic nerd. (In all senses of "gigantic" here.)

¹ Before some Yahoo tries to "own" me by pointing out "BUT ANDROID IS BASED ON THE LINUX KERNEL TOO!!!!111oneoneoneeleventy!", here I'm using "Linux" as a shortcut for "Linux on desktop systems as a desktop OS. That Android thing is not the killer line you think it is. It just makes you look intellectually dishonest.