The user-unfriendly fallacy of "modern-looking desktop environments"

liskady

In the Linux Mint summary of Jack Wallen's "Top 5 Linux Distributions for New Users" blog article - https://www.linux.com/blog/learn/2019/2/top-5-linux-distributions-new-users - he mentions he has a problem with Linux Mint's aesthetic, in that the default Cinnamon desktop experience is an "old school desktop" but "perfectly familiar" to Windows users... but I don't understand how this is a problem, being that most users are familiar with how to use Windows.

He also mentions it "offers an interface that requires zero learning curve", and being based on Ubuntu, it has an "immediate familiarity" and "a high usability"...

When I look at the other desktops, they're all different and odd, which I guess he's considering "modern", but it will take new users more time to learn if they're only familiar with Windows or Mac... that's great if you want something different, but not if you just want Linux as an alternative. So I'm really not understanding why Mint is at the bottom of the list, when according to the author it's the most recognizable, easiest to learn, and has the highest usability among most users.

I really don't understand this "modern look" craze people keep fawning over while the modern looks just keep changing every couple of weeks, months, or years, to the detriment of the average user looking for a familiar experience to get into and get things done. The "modern interface" just seems like hipster talk for "I just want it new different and unique to me" when no developer is going to know what exactly you want. So I'm criticizing the author for putting the fancy weird interfaces at the top just because they're not familiar and easy to get up to speed with, against good usability and for cognitive disparity.