I’ve found it to be just the opposite. I’ve had so many more issues on Ubuntu and Debian derivatives than any other distro out there. Both in terms of hardware support and stability, ironically.
Bigger doesn’t necessarily mean better, otherwise Windows would be good.
apt
is atrocious and will nuke your system every once in a while if you’re not careful when installing even the most trivial packages.- Snaps are objectively worse than any other packaging format.
- The software is never up to date and you have to go scavenge for drivers and updated kernels otherwise stuff is just broken.
There are much greener pastures out there, even if a little more niche.
Arch if for tinkerers, no doubt, but Fedora is just as simple to use as Ubuntu. The support is great since it’s backed by Red Hat and has a sizeable following. I never had issues finding what I was looking for. The only caveat is that it’s for newer hardware; not cutting edge mind you, but it may not be the best choice for a 2009 laptop. Anything that’s at most 10 years old though I’d expect to just work honestly, maybe with minimal tinkering.
Right, that’s exactly my point. There’s no argument to be made about Linux “not being ready” in terms of hardware support because in the worst case scenario it’s not any worse than Windows, and those worst case scenarios are few and far between.
Now, in terms of software parity, sure. There’s quite a bit of stuff that won’t run on Wine yet and doesn’t have alternatives, but this discussion was purely about hardware support and that’s solid nowadays.