First, I believe that it does not work to call it "Linux" in that context. There are tons of different Linux distros that vary in stability, and second stability depends on how much the user will break the system.

All Linux distros are usually very stable. I have been using Linux for 15 years (multiple distros) and for me it "just works". Sure, I am an advanced user, so I never end up breaking my system and having to format it. But in my experience, users who say "it's the fourth time I reinstall Linux this quarter, it's just not stable", what it means is that they, the user, broke it. Their distro is most certainly more stable than what they claim.

Now some distros are more beginner-friendly than others, and for the most accessible (Mint comes to mind), I guess they could be compared to Windows. I couldn't say if Windows is easier to use than Mint for someone who does not already know how to navigate Windows. Just like I genuinely don't understand when people say "macOS is easier than Windows" or "iOS is easier than Android". To me they are almost exactly the same, I just don't get it.

My feeling is that most users just don't care about their computer and just need to be able to start their browser and maybe Outlook/Teams. If their very first system was Linux Mint with the browser preinstalled, maybe they would end up thinking this is the absolute simplest system they can imagine?

Best way to be satisfied with a Linux distribution is to not install X or Wayland and ssh into it.

What? I’ve used Linux every day for the last 15 years. Unusable is the last thing it feels like.

I can’t remember the last time software crashed.

Now granted I pushed an import too hard this week and OOMed a box but that was entirely my fault.

Difficult to find drivers sometimes, fractured, not user friendly. All those, but not unstable.

> The typical Arch power user is often a minimalist.

I think the AUR begs to differ, and is a huge reason why the typical Arch user reinstalls their desktop every N months.

[dead]