Fair. And short of someone publishing a study I doubt we will ever know what the best entry point is. So, advocate the atomic distros, I’ll advocate the crusty old dinosaur that moves (slightly) faster then molasses. And someone else reading this thread can recommend one of the rolling distros. At the end of the day to me the importance bit is that someone is interested in Linux as a whole.

Also a lot harder to wrap your head around atomic distros when your first playing with Linux. Windows > a traditional distro (even arch) is a lot more similar then making the switch to an immutable distro.

And to be clear. I’m not going to say Debian is not without it’s flaws. It is the system you choose if all you care about is stability. Case in point, I work with Linux day in and day out for my job, the absolute last thing I want to do is tinker with my laptop when I’m not at work - so I picked Debian. For me, the absolute stability is the most important thing - for others the fact that software can come preconfigured or is just old will be deal breakers.

As for Ubuntu vs Debian - ultimately they are similar. However Ubuntu has made some (IMO) choices I dislike (eg snaps).

It’s a different family then what you have been playing with, but if you want “just works and not fancy” - Debian.

It won’t have the latest and greatest software (security patches sure but nothing else). You trade that for stability.