Programming language Python's 'existential threat' is app distribution: Is this the answer?
I kind of can't help but wonder if this is really about solving the wrong problem.
In dealing with the developer side of things: pip and venv really aren't that bad compared to some of the squirrelly means of distributing software the world has known. But much beyond 'type pip install xxx and cross your fingers', I wouldn't really call it a user oriented system. It works well enough for Python developers but is not catered to Joe Average User or twelve year olds who just want to blow stuff up.
To make things ease on end users of course: you have to solve the actual problem. Linux has a good rule about not breaking userspace--but userspace doesn't care about you! Personally I think that is the real pickle.
Over in NT land it's pretty simple. You build some shit and the system ABI is probably the same across a bunch of Windows versions if you're not too crazy, and most of the baggage is the problem of your install creation process. Whether that's some fancy tool or some rules in your Makefile. It's impressive when you load up a video game that's old as hell and it just works, despite being almost old enough to buy a beer. It wasn't made to be efficient: it evolved to become stable. It grew up in a world where people shipped binaries and pushing changes to users was costly.
Now by the time you have an actual Linux desktop distribution: all bets are pretty much off. A decent one will usually maintain a viable ABI for a major release number but that doesn't mean everything will be compatible forever, nor does it mean the binary dependencies you require will remain in xyz package repo for the next fifty years. Some of this lands on distributions and how they deal with package management to squeeze binaries into nixie norms of hierarchy. Some of this also lands on developers, who may or may not know what an ABI is from a hole in the ground because they're used to recompiling to APIs and configuring ten thousand build time knobs and don't care that changing something impacts binary compatibility between their library and the works of others.
There are reasons why things like AppImage and Flatpak exist. Many of these I think owe to the source centric nature of unix systems. Different communities have different norms of sharing and reuse.
When I began learning unix systems, I chose a source centric flavour that would let me learn how things worked under the hood. The kind where you waited three and a half days because a new version of KDE or GNOME landed and many a dependency in the food chain needed to be rebuilt. The kind where you learned to diagnose linker problems and grumble knowing that changes to library X meant recompiling half your environment if you wanted to be sure your applications didn't combust quietly in a corner just waiting for the day you actually needed to launch them again, or curse at some major framework linking to some piddly library that triggered same.
In the end my times with that system were dominated by two things: stability and compile times. But I didn't chose that in order to have an easy one click and done system. I had chosen it because I wanted to learn how computers worked and develop the means of figuring out why the fuck programs broke. Today if you use that flavour of unix, you can pretty much live a purely binary world that wasn't so easy when I was a padawan.
By contrast an acquaintance of mine back then, ironically a Python programmer, had chosen a more widely known distribution that focused on having the latest binaries available without having to compile all the things. One that's still quite popular about ~15 years later. Let's just say the usability of binary focused distributions has improved with time despite the warts that is binary distribution in *nix land. Or to summarize it thusly:
When it came time for a major version upgrade: I spent a few days compiling before getting back to work. He spent a few days cursing and then reformatted, lol.