I think there is room for improvement with the Linux distributions. There seems to be an over-inflated importance on being ‘close to upstream’.
Take Arch for example. How many Arch users implement a Mandatory Access Control system? Isolation and sandboxing is already a topic of concern with Linux. “Noob” distros have stronger out of box protection by comparison. You have to be pretty knowledgeable in Linux to secure an Arch system. OpenSuse Tumbleweed has been very hard to like. My OS will lock up and I’m not seeing an obvious cause for this in the logs. Packages get updated practically every day, but they never seem to fix that.
If my first foray into Linux are these ‘move fast and break things’ distros, where I have to roll back to an older snapshot because something broke again, I would probably have decided it wasn’t worth the time. Fedora is a bit better in some ways, but I still don’t want to use a ‘testing grounds’ OS for technologies that go to CentOS and then finally RHEL. I would rather be using Alma. Looking at the Fedora forums, it’s not all sunshine and rainbows either. Security fixes are often backported in stability focused distros, like Debian. Your kernel is newer, you’re using some cool new, Rust-based thing…it’s not all it’s cracked up to be.
What’s wrong with a distro like Mint or Pop!_OS? Isn’t the big idea to escape the proprietary, data-mining OS matrix?
“move fast and break things” should be expected from proper rolling release ala suse tumbleweed. Too bad pg doesn’t mention that on the os recommendation page. Personally i like debian testing to be on the middle ground, not proper rolling as debian unstable nor too old as debian stable, plus I’m biased towards .deb distro vs .rpm or .pkg or whatever else.
Pg recommendation aren’t a bible, practice some critical thinking and consider your needs too. Imho any mainstream linux distro will be far better if your threat model being to ditch closed source windows or macos.
Spin a vm on your current host, install whatever distro out there, break it, doesn’t like it, try another one on another vm, rinse and repeat until you found the one for you.
Edit: I think also agree that the os page should be reconsider, and proper rolling release bleeding edge distro of tumbleweed or pure arch shouldn’t be recommended to prevent catching newcomers that just tried to ditch windows and macos off guard by their linux install break on day 3. Or at least if they’re staying, mention the pitfall and the caveat of breakage. Have an upvote op!
The thing I think you seem to be overlooking is that Privacy Guides just doesn’t recommend desktop Linux distros to use as alternatives to others. They recommend distros that are also private and secure enough that most people can use from the get go (for the most part if not absolutely 100%).
If you ask me, the things you learn and can do with Mint or Ubuntu can also be done on Fedora. Updates and all don’t necessarily need use of CLI nor do installing and deleting apps. Besides that, making sure WiFi, Bluetooth, and sound works are the only other things you need to ensure (for a fully functional system) which it does the vast majority of the times if not always if you have a older hardware.
So, don’t take it personal if your favorite or preferred distro for a beginner is not included. The recommendations are not (necessarily) about that.
But, welcome to the forum!
Not just this but also choosing a distro that is optimal for good privacy and security from a fresh install/default.
Nothing.
They do not backport every security fix. They backport some. I believe they only patch the ones that are given a CVE. Debian also does not have a strong security setup by default. You’re responsible for setting it up.
Basically you’re almost always better off going with fedora. It’s up to date, actually updates, and has SElinux set up by default.
Not just this but also choosing a distro that is optimal for good privacy and security from a fresh install/default.
Do you not see an issue with a distro that has no MAC system by default? What happens if there is an exploit in your browser? The browser is maybe one of the most important packages to defend, no?
Are you talking about Firefox here for the browser? Or referring to a browser in general that includes any browsers that you can install on Fedora?
I was being nitpicky about your language of ‘by default’. I was thinking of Arch when you said this.
It would be any browser you install. I am no security expert by trade, but I like to learn and read about it. Systems like SELinux have ‘profiles’ that limit what a package or application can access and do. Arch benefits from less packages and being more up to date, but it is very unopinionated and you are in charge of securing it yourself.
My concern is that being marketed as a guide, this probably means less tech literate types may be lulled into a false sense of security without say, a bit of a warning that you, the user, should be setting up a MAC and probably some additional sandboxing/isolation measures yourself. I do think Arch is a very capable distro, but for specific uses and by more proficient users. The Arch users I know in real life did not know what a MAC was when I discussed the topic. MACs like AppArmor and SELinux seem to be a ‘no brainer’ layer of security in modern Linux systems. No, they are not a ‘panacea’ of perfect security–but I think defense in depth applies here.
Yes, simplicity is security in my opinion, as I personally scared of changing anything and stick with defaults 
Example of the most I do in Linux: ubuntu configuration recommendations - #5 by rmd
The section for Arch currently reads:
Being a DIY distribution, you are expected to set up and maintain your system on your own.
And if you hover over “expected to set up and maintain” or follow the link, you’re met with (among other things):
For a secure system, you are also expected to have sufficient Linux knowledge to properly set up security for their system such as adopting a mandatory access control system, setting up kernel module blacklists, hardening boot parameters, manipulating sysctl parameters, and knowing what components they need such as Polkit.
What percentage of population can or will do that? Super tiny.
“Balance between simplicity, secure defaults, usability & stability” could be added to recommendations criteria list.
But “usability” I see exist under general criteria:
Usability: Tools should be accessible to most computer users. An overly technical background should not be required.
Is this criteria being followed? For the most part: no.
Maybe only “Fedora Linux” KDE edition is usable for most people, but I have no usage experience of it to compare (with Ubuntu).
As mentioned, there is a disclaimer about this. That being said, I have seen a lot of overconfident users who probably do not properly configure their Arch systems. I’d consider @rmd’s suggestion to add “secure defaults” to the criteria. I feel like any sufficiently knowledgeable power user who’s able and willing to properly configure a secure DIY distro doesn’t need to see Privacy Guides recommending it as an option. That audience already has a good understanding of what makes a Linux distro more or less secure and can decide whether to use Arch or Gentoo or whatever independently from Privacy Guides’ official recommendations.
This is also already addressed in the Linux Overview. The distros you suggested are perpetually outdated (which is a known security risk) and some (depending on the version and DE) like Linux Mint and Pop!_OS completely lack GUI isolation as they’re currently still using X11 rather than Wayland. (Though they will eventually switch to Wayland.)
Compared to other distros? Not really. Many distros barely do anything additionally for security, so some small changes are usually enough.
Since it is quite easy to install Apparmor, I would guess that many do.
The same as on other distros, because non of the popular distros confines browsers by default with Apparmor or Selinux. Only I can think of are browsers running as Snap and Trivalent on Secureblue. Check your processes via ps -Zaux to see what is confined.
Parphrasing a team member (jonah), most Linux distributions are private. Security is where the issue is.
This discussion for me is an illustration of a recurring trend in this forum. There seems to have a tendency and support to dumb down everything.
The comment that addressed the discussion from @hashcatHitman received only two positive feedback so far.
This seems a bit alarming, requests are popping up here and there to make recommendations that are aimed for “normies” and therefore excluding the diversity and the strive for excellence.
The root cause for this proliferation, in my opinion is the lack of team members helping to answer this occurrences.
If there is a question regarding the recommendations it would help to have engagement from the PG team. Sorry to call that out but your omission is killing this forum. You used to be much more present in the past and it was so good.
Take as an example, the other spectrum of this, there as request to add Gentoo and the team member answered the following:
For regular desktop usage, void, alpine and gentoo are quite painful, and unless you want to do a lot of tinkering. The reason we like Archlinux (which I might add is one of the distributions Madaidan uses) is because of it’s reproducible builds.
Source: Add Gentoo Linux, Void Linux and Alpine Linux - #2 by dngray
That is helpful, now, where is the counterpart to address this specific type of discussion about removing Arch from the recommendations?
You have to balance striving for excellence, and making these recommendations usable for vast majority of people. I believe usable security & privacy is the goal of privacy guides by the end of the day.
Where else do regular people (non-deep-linux-experts) should get advice from? I looked up what techlore recommends Privacy & Security Resources | Techlore Recommendations but it just copies PG recommendations.
Yes, stability is very important. Linux should not brake.
Can you perhaps elaborate on what you think makes an Operating System “usable” for the vast majority of people?
In my experience, the “vast majority of people” are severely allergic to changing their operating system at all. This wouldn’t be different on Mint, Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora, Arch, Void, or any other distro; a lot of people don’t even give a VM a chance. They’re happy with what they have and see no reason to upend their lives or workflows.
Outside of those who refuse to change, yes, I would agree Arch isn’t a sufficiently secure default, nor is it “usable” for non-technical users. I’m also of the opinion that it is OK for it to not be super secure by default so long as there is a clear warning and it isn’t the first recommendation; both of these criteria are met, as far as I am concerned. I have no experience with openSUSE Tumbleweed or NixOS, so I cannot speak on them. I do, however, have experience with Mint, Debian, Ubuntu, and Fedora. I’m a bit more technical than the average person. Not an expert, but definitely at an advantage. That said, I have had, by far, the easiest time on Fedora. The biggest pain point I had when switching over was dealing with figuring out non-free media codecs via RPM Fusion. That took all of 30 minutes at most (probably much less) and I hardly think about it anymore.
With Debian, the “stability” was more than a security risk, it was a massive pain point. I was perpetually stuck with outdated software and had to find workarounds just to be able to use the software I needed to use (let alone use it securely). This led to less stability in my overall experience, because I was constantly running into problems where software was incompatible due to being too old.
With Ubuntu, my experience was… pretty bland. It felt like Debian with a different coat of paint. Which in and of itself should have been enough, really. But what really drove me away was Canonical and their infamous hiring process (See: 1 2 3 4 5). A hiring process like that is a symptom of organizational issues that WILL come back to bite me later.
With Mint, your options are “Debian based” or “Ubuntu based”. I was tired of the song and dance and honestly didn’t want to use something based on either of them. I gave it a shot but couldn’t get over the prior two. You could argue I didn’t give it a fair shot. I wouldn’t disagree.
I was very hesitant about Fedora; I had been using Debian for work related reasons for a while prior, so even though I hated it, it was what I was familiar with. But, nevertheless, I decided to give Fedora a shot. I went with COSMIC Atomic to start with; I knew perfectly well it was NOT a stable release, I just really wanted to try out COSMIC. It went… well. COSMIC was still alpha software, but the experience was still largely usable. Not usable enough to stick with, but it was a good sign. I switched to Silverblue, the Atomic Fedora flavor using GNOME. It was a much more complete experience, but I didn’t like GNOME. So I switched to Kinoite, the Atomic Fedora flavor using KDE. I have not looked back. Crucially, the atomic flavors of Fedora made it so much easier for me to explore desktop environments without really knowing what the process of changing your DE looks like; all I had to do was rebase to the flavor I wanted. I’m happy knowing it will be easy for me to switch to COSMIC again when it reaches a level of feature support, stability, and maturity that I am comfortable with.
“Stability” is subjective. All software will break. Windows updates break things. MacOS updates break things. Debian broke more for me in a day than Fedora has in my entire time using it just by being outdated. If you can’t handle your computer “breaking” even a little more than once every two years, you aren’t going to have a good time on a computer period.
With Arch, yes, being “bleeding-edge” has a lot of downsides. I would not be comfortable with having to fix something daily or being at such significant (perceived) risk of supply-chain attacks.
With Fedora, on the other hand… one release every 6 months? That’s… perfect (in my opinion)? I can’t imagine a better release schedule. Crucially, I can still get the latest versions of packages quite quickly; most are not strictly bound to this release cycle. Coupled with the atomic variant, where every time I update, install, or remove a package, a backup is automatically made so I can rollback to a previous version of my system if there IS any breakage (which in some extreme cases will even be handled automatically, ie if I broke something badly enough that it cannot boot into Fedora), I cannot imagine a more beginner-friendly or stable approach.
I don’t know where else to look for advice. But I’ll say this much: I cannot in good faith recommend anything other than an atomic variant of Fedora for… anyone less than an expert, really. It is my personal opinion and experience that it is the best option available to anyone in the range of “Not technical” to “Technical, but not a security expert”. I would rather recommend they stick with Windows than suggest they use something like Debian, because if I hadn’t already been “hardened” against Debian’s flaws by the time I tried it, it very well may have turned me away from the idea of ever using any Linux-based operating system again. It was all I knew, after all.
At the end of the day, of course, what anyone does with their computer isn’t my business as long as it doesn’t interfere with my life. If you want to use Mint, Debian, or whatever, by all means, do! I hope you have a great experience! But as far as I’m concerned, they provide zero benefit over the existing recommendations. Fedora is perfectly good for the average person IF we assume that person is truly open to the inevitable pain points that come with ANY operating system change. Arch might not be, and I personally wouldn’t cry if it were no longer recommended, but the difference to me is:
- Arch actually has something to offer through reproducible builds
- Arch is frequently recommended as a starting point because it is a learning experience. A non-technical user who is brave enough to choose the path with the “YOU’RE ON YOUR OWN!” warning may very well have the traits required to learn from their experience and become a technical user. I would not count on it, but I think it is worth considering.
Members of my community and I follow this forum, as passive readers, because of this policy aimed at ordinary people.
What I realized before, but especially in the last 5 years, pandemic period and post-pandemic, which forced many people to work from home, is that what prevented people around me from switching to more private tools is linked to one or more of the following factors:
- Feeling of insecurity.
This is one of the main reasons to stay on Windows.
MAC devices are the gold standard safe for a “normie”, but the standard “normie” in my country would have to save 1 year of your salary without spending any penny to buy the cheapest of these devices, while used devices continue at an equally high price.
Windows devices are the common standard of security and usability for the “normie”. Comes with a built-in antivirus - Windows Defender - that solves common problems.
When a person searches for safety, he discovers two bunny bunnies:
Rabbit 1 - Windows is the operating system that has the most viruses in nature, but at the same time it is what brings the best security features by default, according to your hardware.
On the Operating System: Click a few buttons in your Defender, block incoming connection to the Defender firewall, and you’re done.
In the habits:
Be wary of unsolicited email and PDF files from random places
avoid unfamiliar or “cracked” apps
use ad blocker and DNS resolver with malware blocking
In my experience: changing a setting in Defender, telling the person to avoid “cracked” programs and using ad blocker was enough for a considerable amount of people very, very “normies”, to live well using their Operating System.
They are aware that their data is going to Micro$oft, but this is a lower risk than random people getting their data.
Micro$oft is a company and is bound by laws, as well as having a reputation to care for. JhnDe00001 wants to spy on you for later charging you in bitcoin so as not to expose your information on the internet.
This is where I would like to talk about Linux.
Rabbit 2 - Before learning about the security of Linux, he comes across “what distribution to choose?”, and after choosing his distribution, he faces two problems, a) insecurity common to all distributions (kernel), b) insecurity by default of the chosen distribution.
I don’t remember where I read that phrase, it was something like:
On Windows your data belongs to Micro$oft, on Linux your data is GPL3.
First you have to decide between a distribution with little chance of break, but that does not receive all the security updates for the kernel and the applications of your repository (LTS), or a distribution with newer releases and better security, but which at any time can break for reasons of…updating your operating system.
Then you learn how to install your applications safely. It’s better than Windows, it has repositories! It is not the official developers of the applications that distribute it, but a group of random people, who in some cases can be more reliable (Ubuntu, Fedora, …), or less reliable (UAR, Flatpak not verified, …), but who in the end are reliable as long as you learn how to package works and so on.
On Windows you need to make sure that you are on the right site, but on Linux, even the official repository of your distribution may be outdated or missing with official developer security features - see Firefox and Firefox ESR, more deprived than most derivatives of Chrome, but less secure on Windows, and much less secure on Linux, which makes the user closer to handing over their data to JhnDe00001, whose only law is that of the jungle.
The “normie” then seeks to answer his doubts about the possibility of JhnDe00001 obtaining his data, and is confronted with these arguments:
JhnDe00001 won’t get you, you’re more interested in creating malware for Windows!
JhnDe00001 won’t pick you up, Linux is much more secure than Windows!
Antivirus is not needed on Linux, JhnDe00001 will not get you because Linux does not pick up malware!
Antivirus is an evil enumeration! The biggest danger is between the chair and the monitor!
That last statement is very mean. Once a friend, sick because of a transmissible disease, used it as an example: she took all the measures not to become infected, but her family did not, and she was infected by the family. The parallel: The Linux user may have good usage habits (stay up-to-date, browse secure sites, and so on), but your operating system is an openly self-destructive pandora box, where everyone knows that their family (kernel, distribution) comes with a certain configuration by default, which can be explored.
The Linux malware is focused on servers, where experienced people make modifications so that the Linux kernel and its distribution reach a level of security that no Alice will achieve in years of using her computer.
The argument that Linux distributions offer privacy is true, until the moment security holes appear, and the absence of an appropriate audit system for “normies” makes Alice feel uncomfortable with a chance that JhnDe00001 may be laughing at the kitten videos she watches when she arrives at work - and that he can do so using her shell in a way that the operating system allows with some ease.
In another situation, Bob researches international immigration law and discovers that Tor Browser offers excellent privacy. He decides to use “Linux” with “Tor Browser”, enters the two bunnys, then asks me:
All right, most people use a Chromium derivative and most people use Windows, which makes these two valuable targets of malware. And for fewer people using Firefox, it is a less valuable target for malware creators. But Tor Browser and the Tor network, besides being used by ordinary people, are also used by criminals, politicians and security agents, extremely valuable targets, making the exploitation of the navigator as valuable as the exploitation of Chromium, right? And the Linux kernel doesn’t run on those very valuable companies, making it an equally valuable target? And Even ignoring the issue of Tor Browser, why do Linux distributions put the default browser like Firefox if they know of their security issues in Linux, which can allow a data leak more easily? Do I not lose the benefit of privacy if my system is inherently insecure? I can’t audit my system and its logs, which is the recommendation they gave me. What do I do?
Then Alice returns to Windows because no one has convinced her that her Linux distribution survives the JhnDe00001.
Bob brings a valid question, with a hidden argument to avoid Firefox-based browsers, which makes him suspicious of the concern that distributions have with “normies” users, in the end deciding that communities can have good intentions and offer something free, without surveillance at the operational system level, but that good intentions do not survive a deeper analysis because "Linux is blind to what I do, but it seems that JhnDe00001 can see me with relative experience. In this situation I have more to lose than giving my data to Micro$oft.”
The discussions in my community end up coming that sentence I read in some dark corner of the internet: on Windows your data belongs to Micro$oft and on Linux is GPL3.
They care about privacy, and when they care about privacy, they decide on a threat that could cause less harm if they gain access to your data.
It may seem contradictory, but that’s how it happens.
The scenario in which many said “Linux does not catch viruses” is changing slowly, you can find sensible voices in the crowd that claim otherwise. But I’ve gotten that answer over the last 10 years talking to many normal and enthusiastic Linux users. And that statement did not survive a quick search on G0ogle.
The number of people concerned about privacy using Linux can grow with distributions/projects at disaster proof (unchangeable/atomic, for example), projects like Flatpak, and safety standards that allow a “normie” to use the operating system without going to sleep worrying if the JhnDe00001 is looking at it and saying “good night, my baby, rest well, JhnDe00001 loves you”, or without worrying about sleeping today. The greatest power is in the treatment received by contacting communities that recommend Linux-based operating systems.
I will avoid going into the issue of software that can be:
(a) very ugly,
b) have a lot of function, but be dysfunctional - not intuitive to use - because the developer leads to the end product the mindset of a developer, not the potential end users, so the app is shicado and suggestions of normal people lead to the comment of “do, contribute to the code or leave here”,
c) install packages that no longer receive updates,
d) break the operating system,
and so on…
I already broke a profile in Fedora KDE, in a user and clean system, just because I centered the taskbar, and I had just installed the operating system… months later I tried the Fedora Kinoite, and the same thing happened… and it happened to two more people I know, absolutely randomly.
Years ago my system broke when updating and spent almost a week trying to fix. This happened more than once using Fedora, which motivated me to return to Windows, then try an immutable/atomic distribution, go back to Windows again, and finally return to Linux thanks to the uBlue images (Bazzite, Bluefin, Secureblue, among others). It’s not that I had laziness to solve the problems that have arisen, it is that the insecurity of the system to be able to break down at any time was stronger than my mental capacity and physical fatigue to find solutions to some common problems and concerns. In my country it is normal for the working day to start at dawn and end near midnight.
See in my personal report above that I faced some problems and this did not take me away from the journey of privacy with the Operating System, but removed friends, family, students, lawyers, some doctors and at least a farmer.
As proprietary software and operating systems deliver something beautiful, or accessible (reasonable functionality), with the minimum of breakage, and the main software and operating systems FOSS are somehow broken, generating stress and loss, including financial in some cases, are left aside by the population that would benefit most from it.
Some bodies very specific to my government use LibreOffice because of the FOSS philosophy, using it since the emergence of the organ and thus a culture was created within the organ, while other bodies use a Linux distribution of their own and OnlyOffice, because they came from Windows and Office and OnlyOffice is the one that caused the least disturbance and a smooth transition to the FOSS.
In both cases, they are being guided by excellent technology professionals.
They are wonderful examples that it is possible to get more privacy and security, as long as someone keeps the system without breaks so that you, the average person, use it.
My current fight is with SimpleX. I don’t have a smartphone, the recommended Linux systems/distributions are the ones that work in Wayland, and while SimpleX worked on Windows, it doesn’t work on Linux with Wayland, it depends on some form of X11. I can enable Xwayland, but… I lose in security augment my attack vector, and in privacy because of the problems of one program being able to snoop on the other in X11, or be the target of some vulnerability that in any way can lead me to be snooped, which in any case is a degradation of privacy.
Everything I said above is based on real experience, real conversations, real people and their real concerns, to the point that I came into contact with community projects, and even university in my city, which distributed notebook with Ubuntu or Fedora to their students, and who presented me more or less equally these concerns, problems and difficulties, and others that I stopped reporting.
Nice experiences in the use of software and operating system generate their recommendation, and the increase in users generates increased awareness of what makes that software or operating system something unique, and in the case of Linux is privacy.
I personally believe in three threat models:
Standard
Business business
Governatorial
With the following difference of standard to business and government:
In business there is more data and more people accessing the data, so the control policy from which it enters and where it leaves must be greater.
In government, there is data that can cause destabilization of entire communities, so the access policy and the hierarchy of control and command must be larger.
And with the utopian thinking that the operating system should offer the same level of security for all three, at least when it comes to passive threats.
The conclusion my community and I have come to reach is that:
Linux offers excellent privacy for an ordinary person, but due to lack of security, privacy can be nullified in very unpredictable ways.
Linux offers absolute privacy to a person with knowledge, and reasonable security for an enthusiast.
Linux offers absolute privacy and security when managed by companies or governments with dedicated sectors.
While Windows is dependent on good habits, in Linux security depends on technical skills unavailable for most.
At this point I want to remember that these thoughts are not absolute affirmations, are reflections and thoughts of several people I am gathering in my comment, people I know, I live, and some that I managed to change the habits, with the help of Privacy Guides and this forum, for better privacy standards through applications and even the change of the Operational System.
I had more things to write, but while I was writing, I ended up getting lost and forgetting, and my time was up.
This forum plays a very important role because its policy and recommendation criteria say https://www.privacyguides.org/en/about/criteria/:
"General Criteria
Below are some general priorities we consider for all submissions to Privacy Guides. Each category will have additional requirements for inclusion.
Usability: Tools should be accessible to most computer users. An overly technical background should not be required."
That is why I am extremely grateful to you, whether the members I have mentioned directly in this topic, whether you are the other members of the forum, be the team and the team.
Discussions that take place in this forum goes beyond the domain of the internet and reaches people and communities, even if you do not know it directly.
I am grateful that the forum is accessible for “normies”, I and my community are grateful.
There are many spaces for enthusiasts, professionals and people in the area, but few spaces and communities with a high standard of discussion that is accessible enough to give sensible recommendations while thinking of the average person.
I wrote a lot and my available time is over, but I leave my thanks to everyone who helped me on my post, I return to it when possible.
This post is an exposition of affirmations, questions and real experiences that I believe to be within the topic, were written in the best of intentions, and may be confused mainly because of the language and translation barrier, in addition to my own fatigue while writing. Forgive me if I seem rude, aggressive, or anything like that, it is not my intention.
Tell me if any sentences are confusing, obscure or wrong, I may have missed something during the translation review process.
@hashcatHitman a long post
I am one of those people who don’t change their OS.
I see you distrohop a lot. People have many different hobbies beyond computers…
Just works. Looks beautiful. Is easy to use.
Big tech make things easy & secure, but they are terrible for privacy.
Open source alternatives also have to be easy & secure, for people to have good option for privacy.
I install linux for people and expect it to run smoothly by itself for extended periods of time. Short window to upgrade aren’t good for that; etc.
It cannot break. It has to work smoothly. Ubuntu LTS does work smoothly by itself, I am very happy installing it on computers, but even LTS window gets too short how infrequently I get to see these computers again.
I see Techlore rates OS by difficultly, and it gave Fedora “moderate” difficulty rating.
For comparison, gave Macintosh an “easy” rating.
There could a linux distribution selected with an “easy” rating.
I didn’t look to the links, but I watched Ubuntu own detailed video about their hiring process. I loved it! 
https://youtube.com/watch?v=ik8AXTjUbS4
(now I will know the story maybe potentially possibly is more complex)
@anonimo_a omg, even many times longer post came up 
. I skip. Forum could have a limit for the length of posts.
I do not understand this sentiment. Fedora Workstation is not Fedora Rawhide that is the technically correct testing distro. Fedora is the semi-independent idea incubator and is basically its own thing.
If you are using a brand new laptop with a brand new CPU architecture and a newer onbpard dedicated GPU (hopefully Radeon), Fedora has a higher chance with it working compared with Ubuntu or Mint.
I’m marking this thread as invalid and closing it because the initial post, as well as OP’s follow-up replies, don’t clearly propose an actionable change to the website. There are a few angles from OP’s critique of the current recommendations that can lead to actionable changes, though.
If you want to suggest Linux Mint as a recommended Linux distro on the site, feel free to open a Site Development > Tool Suggestions thread for it. If you want to suggest Pop!_OS, feel free to chime in on the existing thread:
If you want to suggest that we place a higher emphasis on the warnings already woven into the Arch recommendation that @hashcatHitman succinctly brought up, feel free to open a separate Site Development thread for it.