> It’s still too confusing for the average user (many distros, many desktop environments, Wayland vs X, systemd vs init, snap vs flatpak).

Users don't need to know about any of that, except for picking a distro and just using whatever is there.

Regarding DAW - I get sticking with Windows if you have thousands invested in it. Even so, there's quite a bit of professional software out there with native support (like Bitwig) or flawless Wine support.

I'm fairly proficient when it comes to Windows, but the diversity in install methods for Fedora threw me for a loop, too. It seemed easier at first -- get all your software from trusted sources in the default package manager, just like an app store! But then there's the question of RPM vs. Snap vs. Flatpak vs. downloading an installer from their website, some versions being further behind than others, the method you use having implications for where/how programs are installed and maintained, etc. It adds cognitive friction and makes troubleshooting harder; I'm not even sure if there's a reliable way to see a list of all programs installed on your machine (regardless of method) or how to easily uninstall them. I don't regret switching, but it is an obstacle, and more consistently than the initial question of which distro to use.

They absolutely do, the moment you have any problem you are on your own. I spent half a day troubleshooting why nvidia drivers were not loading (mint was not signing them and secure boot silently kicked the module out), and I'm many times more proficient at technology than an average person.

Pick any distro and it'll still have at least 3 ways to install software. Might also have 2 window systems and 4 DEs.

> (like Bitwig)

Been there, done that... worked fine but with an unacceptable performance penalty.

Even if they pick a distro and decide to install it, more often than not the install process is still overly convoluted even in just making installation media.

Going to a distro website and trying to find where to get it (ubuntu has a habit of leading with literally anything else other than regular desktop distro on their front page). Finding a download page, and having it just spit out an iso file, with no explanation on what to do with it, or 'how to install' link in sight (debian, it's very nice that there's a big download button, but like...then what. where's the explanation link. it's buried under other downloads, but that's not very intuitive). Getting to a 'how to install' page and having it be intimidatingly long, perhaps even needlessly. Sites, pages and explainers being laid out in confounding ways, and install process sometimes laid out in a bit of an overcomplicated way. (debian has an installation guide that's presented perhaps in the most intimidating way possible to a new unwitting user, and also buried under click on a click on a click. somehow writing the iso is not even among the first dozen of pages there. ubuntu mate gives you links to iso downloads, and yet the installation process is buried under 'faq' (again, not very intuitive or straightforward), that faq only has a bunch of oddly laid out 'making installation media' pages, and the rest of actual installation process is just somewhere else.)

That's before someone even gets to the actual install process. Somehow all of that stuff hasn't gotten more streamlined or user friendly. If you try to see how one would go about getting and installing any distro, you'd quickly see that it's very confusing and convoluted, way more than it has to be, or needs to be to appeal and be simple for new users.

There's glimmers of hope, like fedora which has its media writer, which is gonna hold your hand through the whole thing. Even that links out to github for a download, despite clicking on a seemingly specific 'windows/mac or linux' button. It's a little buried too, below iso downloads, when it really should be brought up more forward, and explain a little bit better on how it's gonna guide you thru the whole thing.

It really should be an app that's gonna guide you thru it, or a dead simple 1-2-3 step tutorial that's gonna guide you thru writing an image (download writer, download iso, write an image - laying it out more than that is just overcomplicating it really, at least in the initial quick install guide), with a clear, visible link to it - and yet somehow even this is too high of a bar for many distros to clear.

What has done a number on the ease of installing linux is how compact discs have just went away, because having a compact disc, burning it, or having it be just sent to users was making that step of the process simpler. Sure, writing to a USB is easy, but the expectation that everyone's just gonna have a spare usb is naive (and you're never gonna hear that you actually need to buy a usb stick in any of those guides lol), and there's just a little more opportunity to fuck up there (overwriting other disks, unless the writer app is laid out nicely and fail-proof). Distros might as well start selling usb sticks with installers on them. If someone's gonna be brand new to the whole thing and they're gonna have to buy a usb stick anyway, they might as well buy it from the distro with the distro on it already.

Some distros may want to get real about how a new user would even navigate their websites in order to get the thing. Like just trying to go thru that process themselves and see what's that experience like.