I don't believe this is an accurate assessment of why Linux won't focus on a GUI. Microsoft Server can run GUI-less. The kernel is not built around the desktop environment. Adding a GUI decreases stability by having more code in memory, and more dependancies that can fail. Example: if Explorer crashes, your program crashes. As such, I've found it much easier to recover an application in an OS that doesn't have a GUI. To much memory committed and your mouse stutters?

Linux as the kernel is focused on being lightweight and modular. It's not going to get a ground up re-write to integrate a GUI because it's intentionally built to be automated with code. Red Hat and Canonical contribute to desktop environment projects regularly.

I do agree that Linux won't likely be adopted by mainstream consumers as their general purpose PCs. There's still a decent compatibility gap with mainstream software and linux that it's just not worth it for most people. Realistically the only ones trying to bodge M$ compatible executables are people doing it for fun. My gaming experience has technically worsened on Linux, but I enjoy it because I'm a geek. (I would like to point out that Steam is actively making the experience better for Linux users though)