Actually, I mostly use that blog as a place to post comments from online discussions elsewhere, often as much for my own later reference as anything else. I am taken aback to find that a friend has linked to it on HN and it's attracted so much discussion!
If I had meant it to be widely-read, it would have been rather different and submitted for professional publication -- probably on the Register.
The only point of yours that I'd disagree with is that I contradict myself inasmuch as Win10 is different from earlier versions. Yes, it is; but it is not _completely_ different. It retains many major UI elements, such as the taskbar, which function very much as they did before. There is something called a Start Menu again, but this works significantly differently from in earlier versions -- but then, it has been substantially reworked in previous revisions of Windows, as well.
I don't generally use Windows much and have not done for many years. However, sometimes paid office jobs require me to, and I like to keep my hand in. As I'm used to launching apps with a search command in both OS X and Unity, I simply did so in Win8. I was not discommoded by the disappearance of the Start Menu. However, having one back again that's only superficially like the old one actually requires rather more adjustment, I have found.
Win10 is quite similar to Win8.1 except that the Start Screen has been reframed as a menu, and the Charms bar has gone. Win8.1 was of course very similar to Win8. Win8 was different to Win7, but not massively; and so on.
GNOME 3 is _very_ unlike GNOME 2. There is little commonality in the UI. I'd say GNOME 2 bore a closer resemblance to KDE, Xfce and LXDE than it does to GNOME 3.
Of course, new versions of major Linux desktops have often prompted people to fork and continue the previous version. KDE 3 begat Trinity, GNOME Classic Mode begat Consort, and so on. Generally, these forks have languished -- remained obscure or died.
The fact that GNOME 3 begot both Cinnamon and Maté, and that both of these have proved, relatively speaking, very popular and successful and seem to be in relatively rapid, active development speaks volumes, I think.
Some years ago, I published an article about the factionation that GNOME 3 had caused: http://www.theregister.co.uk/Print/2013/06/03/thank_microsof...
At that time, I saw it as a very negative thing: a loss of, er, unity.
Now, I see it as more positive. GNOME 3 did re-enliven things and has brought us more diversity and innovation.
Just possibly inadvertently. :-)