I think distro maintainers need to do a better job highlighting the actually important differences between distros rather than what fancy wallpaper is enablednby default.

The most impactful difference between the major distros:

• Debian prioritize stability at the cost of shipping outdated packages
• Fedora prioritizes modernity at the cost of some stability
• ArchLinux says "fuck it" and tries to ship the latest software as soon as it releases, at the cost of stability
• other distros like Ubuntu, Mint, Bazzite, Manjaro, SteamOS, etc are usually derived from one of those three (Ubuntu is derived from Debian)

So there's kind of a sliding scale of linux fear/comfort for users, and your distro choice should reflect where you fall on that scale. Fedora generally provides a good middle ground and doesn't break often, but will eventually break things (esp if you install updates frequently), so you should be prepared to fix them.

Nowadays, atomic distros change this up because they support rollbacks, meaning a broken update can be fixed without any tinkering or Linux knowledge required from the end-user. Also, they're theoretically less likely to break and easier to test due to their immutability.