The thing is that I remember that the priority of the distros at that time when a new edition of the same came out was to inform about the fundamental elements.
These were mainly:
-The boot manager(s) available. Now it is all Grub, but at that time LILO was still very popular.
-The init. Nowadays almost all of them only have Systemd, not giving the option to others, which there are.
-The package system and package manager(s).
-The desktop(s). Gnome, KDE, LXDE, Xfce.
-The login manager.
-The window manager.
-And ultimately the apps.
Nowadays it is not that all this is not reported, but the information is not so clear. And I think that these elements are the main ones. It is true that for a neophyte, it sounds like Chinese if you report on SysVinit or Wayland or .deb or .rpm. But it is the components that make the difference not only in terms of operation but also the philosophy of the distro.
And it is the philosophy of Linux that makes the difference between Linux and other OS. This philosophy is not strict. Nothing happens if you use some non-free package. But when a distro starts to completely separate itself into many elements of said philosophy...bad.
Nobody says that Systemd does not work. But, for example, it violates the Linux principle that each element has to be light, do one thing, one thing only, and do it efficiently. And that its configuration elements have to be accessible in plain text, to be understandable. It is not that it is poorly documented, but it has so many variations, so many changes, and it does so many things unnecessarily that in the end it is very difficult to know what it does and what it does not do.
And I would understand the use and promotion of Systemd, if the promotion that was made of it regarding that it was faster because it started the processes in parallel and minimized the number of processes at startup, were true. The tests that I have done and many of us have done already, show the opposite. It starts many more processes, takes longer, is less efficient and more confusing to follow what it does. It goes against the philosophical principles of Linux.
With snaps, something similar happens with other principles.
And mind you, that does not mean that using Systemd, snap, etc... is bad and should not be done. What I am saying is that when a distro gives you the option to choose, and imposes these components on you, and these do not work as they sell that they work. And they go against the philosophical principles of Linux. And it is not just about one or two, but there are more and more of them. And in a totally unnecessary way. You are playing into the hands of the company behind the distro. And you work based on their interests, which are usually not yours.
I understand that the entry of new users is a basic principle. But almost all distros, not just Ubuntu, come with easy and efficient installers, as much or more than Ubuntu's.
I understand that the desktop is the most important thing as access, for me MATE is great in that aspect, but other light desktops work very well for newcomers as well, better than Ubuntu's Gnome3, which for people coming from Windows I see as counterintuitive. And it requires a paradigm shift.
I understand that someone who is starting out, and for me who is not starting out either, in Linux, is looking for an efficient way to do a new installation or an update. You don't find that the numeric keypad doesn't work because of a bad execution in the installer or in the design of the update. One of the reasons I abandoned Windows is because the OS was so slow even if you didn't use it. Every month or so it was noticeably slower. I wanted to be able to have an OS that I could use for a couple of years or three without it slowing down too much with the passing of days and updates. It's something that even if it seems like it's not noticeable from one update to another. If the update is well implemented, the system works the same. Yes, no, you notice that something is wrong, that it takes longer to start, that it requires more RAM, etc... Maybe I notice it because I mess around a lot with computers with limited resources. But at least I notice it. And that's how I can tell if an update is well done or not, at least for me.
And Ubuntu has been screwing up lately in that respect. A lot.
I'm sorry to vent against Ubuntu in this forum that is for Ubuntu. But it's also for MATE. And I think that Ubuntu is doing the reference distro and the desktop a distro that is not doing well as long as it goes down this path, and it should consider investing its resources in improving the implementation of the desktop for other distros that I think are more neglected, and not putting all its eggs in one basket.
I am not going to continue criticizing, because except for letting off steam, it has little productivity. And I think I have let off steam enough.
)