I've been an Ubuntu user for 20 years, and RedHat and Suse prior to that. Ubuntu just worked. Debian had packages for everything, including from 3rd party vendors. It lets me focus on my work, and not worry about the OS, or compiling packages, or finding installers. When I had issues (rare), the large user base meant that someone had already figured out a solution to the problem.
The flavor of Linux doesn't matter so much in my opinion.
Ubuntu, Mint, PopOS, and others with Debian as an upstream are not Debian. They build their own packages on their own schedules.
Fedora is not “consumer grade RedHat”. It’s the rolling release upstream of RHEL, much like Debian Testing is upstream of Debian Stable.
The main reason Linux got a bad reputation was the tribalism of people going off half-cocked talking about their personal preferences without actually working with the alternatives and starting this sort of holy war diatribe.
i have never once successfully installed fedora. probably just hardware stuff, but as often as i've wanted to try it and opensuse, they have never booted post-install for me. on machines i've successfully installed Debian and openBSD. go figure. i know i'm an outlier here. maybe it's just bad luck.
but reading your post, it sounds like a club i don't want to be a part of. linux is linux. distros don't matter. you can get nearly anything to work if you spend enough time on it. GUI OS installers that fail are not worth my time.
And, yes, I have an overlaid Linux-Libre kernel in SilverBlue.
How about Qubes OS? Also the parent never said anything about isolation and roll-backs. Nobody mentioned Silverblue except you. The discussion is about ordinary users, not hackers.
But honestly I did not like Silverblue. I had a 13 year old gaming computer I installed it on and I couldnt get the ancient GPU drivers installed due to the way things are containerized. This would have been a few commands otherwise.
Maybe its fine for chromebook-like things. I might have picked a bad testcase.