I think Debian Stable, Ubuntu LTS, and derivatives thereof are particularly poor fits for general consumers who are more likely to try to run the OS on a random machine they picked up from Best Buy and is probably built with hardware that kernels any older than what ships in Fedora are unlikely to support.

The stable/testing/etc distinction doesn't really help, either, because it's an alien concept to those outside of technical spheres.

I strongly believe that the Fedora model is the best fit for the broadest spread of users. Arch is nice for those capable of keeping it wrangled but that's a much smaller group of people.

I find this a very reasonable take.

I'll add - I think the complexity is somewhat "over-stated" for Arch at this point. There was absolutely a period where just reading the entire install guide (much less actually completing it) was enough to turn a large number of even fairly technical people off the distro. Archinstall removed a lot of that headache.

And once it's up, it's generally just fine. I moved both my spouse and my children to Arch instead of Windows 11, and they don't seem particularly bothered. They install most of their own software using flatpaks through the store GUI in Gnome, or through Steam, the browser does most of the heavy lifting these days anyways.

I basically just grab their machine and run `pacman -Syu` on it once in a while, and help install something more complicated once in a blue moon.

Still requires someone who doesn't mind dropping into a terminal, but it's definitely not what I'd consider "all that challenging".