Anecdotal, but I have had bad experiences using Ubuntu. I know it’s not a bad distro, and that it contributes a lot (especially historically), but it’s the other distros that take their contributions and add to it that I find worth using or recommending, or sometimes an unrelated distro. It’s the sort of thing I might give money to, but I’ll never want to use directly.

I think this is what people mean when they say it’s bad - that distros that take what Ubuntu made and add their own touch seem more user friendly.

Admittedly this is where the meme kind of breaks down.

I forgot about that, oops.

Historically, yes, Ubuntu has put in the most effort into being the most user-friendly, most easy-to-use distro.

However, I would argue that is not really the case anymore because as other distros (especially Mint and Pop!) have arisen for a user-friendly experience, Canonical has gradually abandoned this over the past few years in favour of being more server focused. Most of the innovation for user-friendly design just isn’t coming from Canonical anymore.

The biggest argument for Ubuntu for beginners is that there are more resources such as tutorials for it - mostly momentum.

BusyBox

“OpenBSD made a secure fork of X?” Depends on what you consider secure I guess. X has some fundamental design issues.

One particularly memorable one is that lock screens in X are run on top of your userspace. If they crash, you get to use your computer again. No matter how many patches are applied to X lock screens, a new bug appears every few years that has to be patched. It fails insecurely, and as such will always be insecure as long as the lock screen could feasibly crash.

If your answer is “lock screens don’t matter,” security is not a top priority for you, and that’s okay. There are other reasons you may wish to use X. Please understand however that some people may find it important, and may choose to use Wayland as a result.

I can’t remember which, but some applications just show as the xorg icon when running under xorg.

I think this is a false dichotomy and an over-simplistic view of the game industry. Remember, there are far more indie games than AAA, so of course they’re going to earn less, there are more to choose from. Plus, if an indie game does too well, it often stops being indie. Most of the money for AAA games is from the same few people paying thousands of dollars in many small purchases too.

Anecdotally, most people’s favourite games are, or at least started off as indie games. However, most people’s least favourite are going to be indie as well. I think the thing with indie games is that they vary a lot, often exploring things that many publishers simply aren’t willing to. This allows them to find and fill a niche perfectly that a publisher can never fill. The main thing is that people see this and start making their own indie games, leading to market saturation pretty quickly.

Plus, the vast majority of people still don’t have 4K monitors. It may be the future, but you seem to think that’s where we are now when we just aren’t.

I quite like many games with “poor” graphics. Perhaps not exclusively, but you’re seriously missing out if you only go for realistic-looking or detailed games. Give a few of those indie games a try, you might be surprised.

Edit: Oh, and terminal games are cool! Usually not very performant though.