>>105675636 (OP)You'd say the same about Windows if you used Linux all your life. It's just a different system and you have to do things the way it's designed. Distros have gone a long way to make Linux retard-proof though so you'll only have problems if you're doing something more advanced, in which case you can't be surprised when things break.
>>105675831>Why is every linux user pushing you so far to install their shitty favorite distro?Different distros are made to satisfy different usecases. But it can often be hard to tell exactly what that usecase is when you're new.
For example,
>Fedora, Ubuntu and Mint.Fedora is maintained by Redhat which sets the standards for all desktop environments, so running Fedora you get something stable and designed exactly by the same people who set the standards. Redhat is the Microsoft of Linux.
Ubuntu has their own thing, while they rely on Redhat standards they're not afraid to make their own technology when the RH solution isn't good enough.
Mint is based on Ubuntu, but has their own desktop environment and configured specifically for home desktop use.
>Debian, ArchDebian is a "swiss army knife" distro designed to be able to do anything from install. Depending on how you install it, you can get a basic desktop environment, a minimal WM or a server. Ubuntu is based on Debian so if you want more control without going full hacker you should use Debian.
Arch is very minimal, makes no efforts for sane default configurations. Using arch is like building a car from scratch. Full control but a lot of tinkering.
>Devuan, Artix, Gentoo, VoidThere's an eternal battle between SystemD and other init systems (manages all the background services on your system), using these can grant you more stability and control but you lose compatibility for some applications that expect SystemD.