User2288
In Windows there is a system executable called WinSAT.
Ah, that's handy. If it does it properly with integrity guarantees, that's something I'd like to see on Linux.
I feel command-line/terminal is not a problem for most people. ... Having a booklet of commands by your side to have to lookup on, left, right, and center, is also impractical and unacceptable.
I don't expect most people to use a terminal for day-to-day usage, but I find it comfortable. Then again, I'm a GNOME or Sway user depending on the month, so I wouldn't say my tastes are easy to pin down.
For commands you run semi-regularly, it's worthwhile creating an alias in your ~/.bashrc file. I use several aliases for yt-dlp, mounting SAMBA shares, and WINE prefixes, and a few miscellaneous commands.
This is definitely something you expect with the Arch experience. I'm not very familiar with other distributions, as I've only used Ubuntu on a desktop for a month, but I don't know what
Each is good in something, but bad in another (from a semi advanced user's beginner experience in linux).
The only major differences between most distributions are the package manger/method for installing software, the versions of software they offer, and the software/configurations it ships with by default. Arch sets up and installs nothing beyond the bare essentials by default, while Fedora sets up almost everything it legally can. Arch uses pacman; Fedora uses dnf (but integrates with GNOME Software to install most software, so you don't have to use the command line).
While it's certainly possible to setup SELinux on Arch yourself, as you've heard from two Arch users in this thread, it's only an option for the most dedicated. Most everything else, though, is not difficult to setup on any distribution. Most of the software on distributions is from a third party, like GNOME, or X.org, or Freedesktop, or Red Hat, or Mozilla—not the distribution itself. So these software will be consistent across distributions, and you can install and set them up on any distribution. It's in the name—distribution. It's a distribution of disparate software from all of these different parties with configurations they think users will like. Linux itself was only made useful by GNU utilities like bash and glibc back in 1991.
Flatpak is something of an equalizer which will close some of the gaps between distributions, because you can have the latest userland software on any distribution, whether it's Debian or Arch, with Flatpak. It's only really designed for GUI applications, though, and not system software. So, the gap between distributions is not as large as you think, and not usually in ways that matter. We could have kept having this conversation about Linux, and I could have never brought up that I use Arch, because it matters little what distribution you use if you plan to have the same setup.
Now, for distributions that are really different, you have GuixSD, Nix, and Gentoo. These distributions are a whole different paradigm in many ways. Gentoo, for example, is a source-based distribution where you can compile everything for maximum control. One of their most attractive qualities is having the ability to install multiple versions of some software at a time, along with a bunch of other neat stuff. For example, you could have multiple versions of PHP installed in Gentoo or Guix and interact with them accordingly. Not so simple on other distributions. On the other hand, everything else about these distributions demands advanced attention from a user.
I just want a secure linux that I can browse the internet with at the very least, without using Tails or Cubes. Even this has been a tall order to find.
Fedora is your best bet. It involves a little more configuration than Ubuntu out of the box, but is a great general desktop operating system with sane configurations by default. I know someone who has had a great experience with it coming from Arch.