From what I understand when reading @jonah’s reply and the criteria, it seems like the main issue was with concerns over Snap conflicting with the open source requirement. I also have an issue with snap (as mentioned in my OP) but if lots of people are complaining that Fedora isn’t a very suitable “just works” distro, I think it’s worth exploring adding Ubuntu as a soft recommendation with warnings or disclaimers, just as they do with plenty other recommendations. I also really liked Jonah’s idea on an Ubuntu configuration guide which could go hand in hand with said warning/disclaimer:
I’m not quite sure, but I think the latest Ubuntu releases might be close to Fedora in terms of how up-to-date the software is. I had just asked about it since I’m not entirely sure myself.
Might be a fair point… I don’t recall having much experience with interim releases (which I assume is what you were referring to) though I do plan on giving it a go and comparing it to Fedora. If enough people in the community manage to run the latest Ubuntu releases while being unable to get Fedora to work, I think it’s worth considering adding Ubuntu as some sort of soft recommendation with warnings/disclaimers, perhaps coupled with a configuration guide as Jonah mentioned.
Again, it isn’t just because of my personal preference or whatever. I really think the average person is much more likely to run into issues (without much support to resolve them) on Fedora than on Ubuntu. It’s not just my experience, but also the experience of others on the forum and elsewhere on the internet. Unless there’s something we missed, I think ultimately it would come down to a discussion on exactly where and when PG can “compromise” on a recommendation. It’d make more sense to me if they hadn’t included so many soft recommendations with disclaimers, but since Privacy Guides is full of “compromise” recommendations, I think Ubuntu could fit in just fine.