This is your first mistake. Different Linux distributions cater to different types of users. Don't group all distributions together. You'll get conflicting answers that are all correct within their respective niches.If you hate it that much, stay away. Don't waste your time forcing yourself to use a system you hate; don't waste the community's time trying to talk you into liking it.

I use it because I find it to be a far less frustrating system than anything else available to me. I don't push others to use it.This is where you go completely off the rails. First, as above, different distributions work differently. I'm not going to try to refute your individual vague complaints. If you restate them with specificity, I can try.No. If your package manager is at all competent, it can be instructed to download all the packages once, so you can install offline at a later point. People in countries with slow/unreliable Internet get very unhappy when that feature breaks.

Moreover, you are again conflating the package manager of specific distributions with the general idea of "software installation on Linux." To be picky, Linux is just the kernel. It doesn't have repositories, or software updates, or package managers at all. Distributions have those things. Distributions are built on top of Linux (and sometimes other kernels).

I will grant that some packages have a habit of breaking their ABI more often than they should. This is something to complain to the individual upstreams about. Linux distributions generally just pass through the decisions of upstream on that issue.This is at once both your most and least accurate point. It is most accurate in that, yes, some packages do break backward compatibility. It is least accurate in that no, Linux the kernel goes to amazing lengths not to break backward compatibility. Kernel breaks are permitted only when no other option is practical.If the source was released, then you can support it or find someone to support it for you. If the source was not released, you are stuck. How does this differ from Windows software? Windows vendors routinely abandon their old versions. In the case of Windows software, abandoned versions often become difficult or impossible to legally acquire, at any price, even before it becomes impossible to run a copy you may possess. At least with freely released software, you can acquire a copy and make the attempt to make it work again.That sounds like something you should take up with Trine 2's maintainers. They should be using the standard system libraries, not requiring special versions. If they absolutely cannot use the standard libraries, they ought to include the required libraries. Windows vendors are more thorough about bundling libraries, but your problem is fundamentally that the people whose job is to deliver the software to you, working and in good order, did a bad job of it.As above, if the vendor either used standard libraries or arranged to bundle their non-standard libraries, you will be fine. If they did a bad job of delivering the software, then you have a problem. Complain to the people who did their job poorly.Then you retrieve them from the attic. Only truly rare things ever really die off the Internet.It does, because you completely misunderstand DRM. At no point have you posed a scenario where a Linux user needs to ask anyone for permission to run a program that is already functional. Every scenario you posed involves a program which is not yet functional that needs more pieces, yet somehow cannot get them.Without it, we wouldn't have the freedom to waste hours in pointless arguments. Linux distribution are actually better about this than any other system I've dealt with. It's a truly broken distribution that cannot handle installing from local media. You'll need to get into specifics about which distribution screwed this up.
Where else do you expect to install from? Do you want someone to mail you a CD? Again, your problem seems to be specific distributions that either did things poorly or you didn't understand how to do them right. Every distribution I have worked with handles homemade offline install media fine.

That doesn't make any sense. Android is notorious for being out of date and for shipping drivers that are not upstream. The latter makes it unnecessarily difficult to run current software on an Android device, assuming you can get past the obnoxious locked bootloader that the phone vendor installed.

If we judge based purely on popularity, then archaic versions of Windows are necessarily "better" than current because they are widely installed (and in some cases, will remain so due to operator preference). In the case of Windows 10 versus pre-Windows 10, the older ones probably are better, but that's only because Microsoft did such a horrible job with Windows 10. :)