You're viewing a single thread.
Be highly unified, which eases software distribution. With Windows, the system software at least is from a single vendor. You'll have differences in hardware and in versions of Windows, sure. But then compare that to Linux, where Wikipedia estimates a thousand different distros. Granted, a lot of those are member of families like Red Hat or Debian that can be supported relatively easily. However, others use more exotic setups like Alpine, NixOS, or Gentoo. Projects like Flatpak are working on distribution mechanisms, but they have their own issues. And even if you get it running, that doesn't mean it integrates well into the desktop itself. Wayland should improve that situation, though.
This is one of the issues that systemd purports to solve, and it gets nothing but flack for it.
Granted, systemd does have its flaws. But the religious war around it is unjustified.
Yes, Linux has steadily improved over the years. It's just always going to have a harder time of it because there isn't one company dictating the base by fiat. Of course, that imparts other advantages. For example, programs developed on Linux tend to be more portable by default than Mac or Windows programs.
In what way does Wayland promise to improve this situation, out of curiosity? Sounds very interesting.