I think Linux is just as if not more capable than Windows is, but the software library has some notable gaps in it. "It can't run Adobe/Autodesk/Ubisoft" That's not Linux's fault, that's Adobe/Autodesk/Ubisoft's fault. I don't think there's a technical reason why they couldn't release AutoCAD for Linux, for example.
I think this is a misrepresentation. What more can Linux really do to get companies like this on board? It already has pretty much all anyone would need to support the platform: GUI toolkits, graphics drivers, etc. As far as I can see, Linux provides all the same functionality that other platforms do to support this, and considering that plenty of other companies support Linux just fine (Zoom, Steam, WPS office, etc.), in my opinion, it's unfair to point fingers and say Linux is bad because other actors pointedly ignore it.
No one is pointing a finger and saying Linux isn't capable, they're saying it currently cannot run certain programs which is true. Why it can't is irrelevant, to the user it just can't.
Software dev here. They dont want the hassle of supporting a new plattform, I guess. Which can be a lot of work: new toolchain, new pitfalls, new things that need testing. And all of that for a userbase that is commercially irrelevant.
Would be nicer if they do it anyway, but I understand why they don't.
"linux is more capable but its just not capable of running anything"
yeah im more than capable to run a marathon. i have two legs. i am not able to run a marathon. having the means to run one doesnt put me in the same party as people that have ran a marathon.
The point is, you COULD run a marathon if that's what you decide to do. But you would need to learn something new and frankly most people are too lazy to do so. And I can often fall squarely into that just like most. But I'm under no illusions that it's my lazy choice to not run a marathon.