Your comment reduces my article to vague claims of ignorance and a basic mention of something you admittedly only glanced on. The article is much richer in depth than your comment suggests, I encourage people here to actually read it so we can have a proper discussion. I promise you that it won't disappoint even if you don't agree fully with it.

That's OOP: https://xkcd.com/927/

If I understand OOP correctly, the NT compatibility promise is the idea that not only the kernel but also the userspace is standardized, backwards compatible and stable.

OOP really doesn't seem to understand how Linux works under the hood and what the issue is.

The main problem is not that e.g. installed libraries are in different paths under different distros, but that installing libraries is different between different distros, and that different versions are available.

A library package might be called libXYZ-dev in one distro and libXYZ-devel in another, and in the third distro it's not even available or available in the wrong versions. That's the real problem, and OOPs approach of splitting package distribution from the stability of the user space is completely contrary to their proposed solution.

They just assumed two contradicting goals would somehow make a coherent whole.

That author just saw Windows and didn't understand why that system works, saw Linux and didn't understand why there's fragmentation problems there and thought that applying the Windows model to Linux somehow magically works.

Edit: I just noticed that the OP and the author of the blog post have the same user name and thus likely are the same person.

Isn't package management "solved" by nix?

Why has there been recent issues with compatibility with the userspace then? from systemd to even not so distant news of glibc failing? The article goes a bit more in depth about what needs to be done, it describes a different packaging and distribution model as well that is simpler and more convenient in design.