Don't get me wrong. I love Linux and FOSS. I have been using and installing distros on my own since I was 12. Now that I'm working in tech-related positions, after the Reddit migration happened, etc. I recovered my interest in all the Linux environment. I use Ubuntu as my main operating system in my Desktop, but I always end up feeling very limited. There's always software I can't use properly (and not just Windows stuff), some stuff badly configured with weird error messages... last time I was not able to even use the apt command. Sometimes I lack time and energy for troubleshooting and sometimes I just fail at it.
I usually end up in need of redoing a fresh install until it breaks up again. Maybe Linux is not good for beginners working full time? Maybe we should do something like that Cisco course that teaches you the basic commands?
Agreed, you get to pick between a system that empowers you to do whatever you like, or an unborkable system. If you need something that won't let you shoot yourself in the foot, you ought to be using an immutable distro.
For ages I blamed GNU/Linux for breaking when I was unknowingly causing issues. These days, I don't fix what isn't broken, and if I can't help myself, I make sure I understand what I'm doing, write down any changes I make, and ensure I have a snapshot ready in case things don't work out.
GNU/Linux may not exclusively be for advanced users anymore, but system customization still is.
Yeah that's not true. There is no such thing as an "unborkable" system. There are, however, systems that aren't often borked by their developers, and systems that are easy or intuitive to fix when they do become borked, or systems that quickly ship a fix when they do become "borked" (this is Windows BTW).
The implication that any "borked" Linux install was somehow self-inflicted by the user is ridiculous.