I switched to Linux mint maybe 6 months ago and it’s been great. Just a bit of adjustment for which programs I needed to get some things done. Also turns out some stuff was WAY easier to get running such as my JavaScript twitch chat bots, I didn’t even need a tutorial and I got it running in terminal. My wife also using mint at the same time I switched and she has been liking it too. Good luck and know there’s a ton of people here that can help you out.

If you do decide to do it, use an LLM. That shit will turbo charge your learning curve.

As side note, you can start learning now or later, choice is your. This is just an opinion tho

Personally, I would not recommend diving into Linux headfirst by installing it as your only operating system. If you can afford an additional small drive (128GB should be plenty), I would suggest buying one and installing something like Linux Mint on that, while putting Windows on your main drive.

That way, you can switch between them whenever you want to (when you turn on your computer, you can just use a menu to choose which drive to boot to), and get somewhat familiar with Linux before deciding if it’s worth your time to really dive in.

(There’s a way to put both operating systems on the same drive, but it’s really easy for something to go wrong and end up with one of the operating systems inaccessible. Since you’re inexperienced, I would avoid going that route for the time being, and just keep both on separate drives.)

Don’t over think it, Mint will be fine. Modern Linux is very user friendly, and you can do almost everything with some form of UI.

I’m both experienced and know jack shit because there is just too much to learn. I just started using it (1998ish) to make cool looking UIs. Its been my daily driver for 15 years now.

You will never learn it all. Over time you may become more familiar with the terminal or you may not. Doesn’t matter. You do you.

Its pretty easy to test drive. Grab a distros “Live CD” version, put in on a thumb drive, reboot and play around. This wont be persistent. When you’re ready, install it on an external SSD. Play around some more now that your edits will be persistent. You’ll mess up. Take notes. Start again once you’ve hosed your system.

It does sound like you’d really enjoy the tinkering. When I switched (also to Linux Mint at the time), I spent the first few days figuring out how I could hide the window titlebars, because I realized I could set keyboard shortcuts for minimize/maximize/close.

That was kind of dumb, but no regrets. 🙃

I will give somewhat of an unusual recommendation for the distro, based on what you wrote: openSUSE with KDE

KDE is a desktop environment (basically the OS GUI), which has a ton of customization options, certainly more than the default desktop environment on Linux Mint.
KDE is probably going to be overwhelming at first, but on the other hand, hiding those window titlebars on KDE would’ve been a matter of minutes rather than days, because it’s just a built-in feature, not something I need to achieve with weird workarounds.

And openSUSE, because it works well with KDE and because it comes with a system settings GUI, called “YaST”, which covers a lot of the settings that you’d usually need to crack out the terminal for.
openSUSE isn’t as mainstream as Linux Mint, and not often recommended to newcomers. There’s certainly more guides and such for how to do things on Linux Mint. But yeah, I do think it’s a fine choice for newbies nonetheless and you do get that extra GUI.

To conclude my autistic ramblings, one more point, you could totally throw Linux on there for now and if you don’t like it, then buy the Windows license and go that route.

You will get comments both ways on this, but I have put lots of people on Linux Mint and they never once had to use a terminal unless they wanted to. Make no mistake, what you can do in a terminal is magic compared to what you can do without it, but you can survive just fine without it. I would suggest also looking at Zorin, and if you really want something different I strongly recommend Bodhi. Most of the distros which are easy for new users are on a Debian or Ubuntu base (Ubuntu is on a Debian base, but a lot of people forget that).

Oh don’t worry. There’s not 40 different distros…there are thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of distros!

As for terminal? Linux is terminal. There is no getting around it.

Now I’m sure SOMEONE will chime in, and say “Uhm actually, I set my 90 year old grandmother up with linux, and she’s blind. It’s not hard to use.”

And they’ll claim you don’t need terminal. But the SECOND even one little thing goes wrong? The online tutorials all start the same way.

Step 1 - Open terminal.

Maybe there is a way to do the thing without terminal. Maybe technically that’s true.

But if you don’t know how, and the tutorials all resort to terminal as step 1, then functionally speaking? Linux requires word code diarrea that is terminal.

As a casual user of Linux (no strong inclination or skill in coding), I tend to veer towards distros that minimize the Terminal usage in favor of graphical user interfaces for accomplishing most changes. Modern Linux distros are a lot friendlier in terms of installing Software from a distro store and graphic drivers via a graphical interface. You won’t ever fully be able to eliminate the terminal usage, as it’s inevitable for certain tasks like adding PPAs on Ubuntu for example. It was honestly word salad for me during my first foray into the Linux world; but now I have a basic understanding of the Linux kernel and how it functions on a very surface level. I know enough to string commands together and understand the reason why it’s necessary to do things in a certain order.

I’m not sure if you’d have a good time with Linux, I’m hesitant to tell you to take the plunge because you will have to faff around with the terminal and use commands at times to accomplish certain things. That requires both focus and patience, which is not something which is naturally difficult for those with ADHD (unless a hyperfixation is quite strong). I’d give yourself time to think about switching for a while, ultimately you might be better sticking with the current OS that you’re using.

Just by reading the first sentence I can tell you that you will enjoy Linux. Don’t worry about all the technical stuff it seems complicated because you don’t know it. Just install Linux and use it and you will learn what all that stuff means. Since you’re building a new PC you got nothing to lose from trying out a few different Linux distros.

You can install Ubuntu (or many other Linux distros) to a bootable USB drive. Restart your computer, press F2 or whatever it says to open your boot menu, and then boot from the USB drive. This will let you run a full version of Linux, which will let you experiment around with it so you can get some experience and see if you like it or not, without having to uninstall your current OS or repartition your drives and mess around with dual-booting. It’ll run a bit slow since it’s gotta come off a USB drive for everything, but that should at least give you a good estimate on whether or not Linux is right for you.

Okay:

You don’t have to deal with scripting and command-line stuff, but all the major tinkering under the hood depends on it. The amount of customisation and tinkering is fairly infinite, so past a certain point you just can’t build graphical stuff to cover every single possible choice - and that’s where the gibberish comes in.

Baseline concepts:

‘Operating system’ means different things in different contexts, and this can be confusing.

---

Context 1: technically correct

Your computer has a big chip that runs programs, and a bunch of hardware that actually-does-stuff: network card, graphics card, disk drive, mouse, keyboard etc. Programs need to talk to the hardware and make it do stuff, or else they don’t actually… do… anything.

There’s two problems with that:

There’s a gazillion kinds of hardware out there, that all has its own language for talking to it, and your program would either only run on one EXACT set of hardware, or it would have to speak all gazillion languages and be too big to fit on your machine.

The second problem is that in order to do more than one thing at a time, you need a bunch of programs all running at once, and they all need to use the hardware, and without something to coordinate the sharing, they’ll all just fight over it and everything falls down in a tangled heap.

A good analogy for this is a restaurant. They aren’t just public kitchens where you can just wander in and start preparing your own meal, taking ingredients/equipment/space however you want, then just carry it to whatever table takes your fancy - and you definitely can’t have all the customers doing it at once. Especially if they don’t know how all the equipment works, where the different ingredients are kept, etc - it would be an absolute disaster, and there would be fights, injuries, fire and food poisoning.

So instead there’s an agreed-upon system with rules, and people that do the cooking for you. You make a reservation or queue at the desk, you are told which table you can have, you go sit there and a waiter brings you a menu. You pick the food - and depending on the place, maybe ask for customisation - then wait and they bring it out to you, then you sit there, eat it, then leave.

That system-with-rules is the operating system, or more specifically the operating system kernel. Any time a program wants to do more than think to itself, it has to asks the OS to do it, and bring it the results.

In this analogy, fundamentally different operating systems (windows / linux / OSX / android / etc) would be like different kinds of (5-star / sushi-train / pizza place / burger joint / etc) that have different rules and expectations and social-scripts to interact with them. A program written for one OS would have no idea how to ask a different OS for what it wanted, and wouldn’t be able to run there.

---

Context 2: what people usually mean

It’s all well and good to have a machine that can run programs and do things, but the human sitting in front of it needs to be able to interact with the thing, so you can poke buttons and move files around and move windows and stuff.

And so there needs to be a crapton of programs all working with each other on the thing to provide all this functionality, and the whole user experience - preferably with a consistent design language and general expectation of how everything should work: you need a desktop environment.

In restaruant terms, this would be the specific brand/franchise/corporate-culture that runs the place. Yes, the general idea is that it’s a burger joint, but specifically it’s a mcdonalds, or a wendy’s, or whatever that homophobic chickenburger place is called - it’s got the decor, it’s got the layout, it’s got the specific combo meals, etc etc, the same uniforms, the same staff policy, etc.

Now here’s the thing:

Let’s say there’s only one sushi franchise in the world. That’s like Windows - there’s updates new versions and some slight variations (server versions aside), but you walk into one, you’ve walked into them all. There’s one Windows kernel, and one windows desktop environment that goes with it.

And say there’s only one pizza-place franchise in the world, and they all look the same, have the same menu. That’s like OSX: there’s one kernel, and similarly one OSX desktop enviroment to go with it. A mac is a mac, and it does mac things.

But linux… linux is different. With Linux, it’s there’s 900 different burger-joint franchises in the world, and literally anyone can go start a new one if they want to put the time into designing one from the ground up. The paradigm is the same - order at the counter at the back, menus on the wall overhead, grab bench seating wherever or get it to go - but every place can design the look and feel, the menu, the deals, the other amenities, the staffing structure, etc.

And the different franchises - that’s what distros are.

It’s the set of programs all working together that create a whole working enviroment, but everything uses the standard kernel to actually get stuff done. If your program can run in one linux distro, then it should be able to run in a different one, because your program uses the same standard set of requests in order to do things.

The windows and the menus and the desktop apps and the way the interface behaves and how you configure everything can be different, but the core functionality that the software uses, is the same.

---

Now, for the most part, Windows is like NO USER-SERVICEABLE PARTS INSIDE, all the fiddly internal bits are carefully hidden away and made deliberately opaque. You don’t need to know, we don’t want to tell you, we’ll let you change the wallpaper, but for everything else, we decide how it’s wired up. If you want it to do things slightly differently to suit your own workflow, tough.

Macs are kind of the same deal: for the most part it’s no-touchee, you’ll break stuff. Just push the very shiny buttons and be happy that everything Just Works ™.

But Linux… doesn’t seal anything in plastic. All the gubbins are not only there on display, they’re mostly all human-readable and human-tinkerable with. Instead of mysterious monolithic chunks of software communicating with each other via hidden channels, with configuration in databases you don’t get to see… it’s mostly scripts you can read and tinker with, and plain-text config files you can edit, all writing useful details in highly-visible log files that you can read through when things don’t do what they’re supposed to.

Now with a lot of distros, you absolutely can just push buttons and treat the thing like a Windows box, and never have to tinker with the fiddly bits. You’ve got a browser, you’ve got apps, you’ve got games, it just does the thing. But if you want to start getting technical, you absolutely can - unlike windows or mac.

But this very ability to configure and tinker and patch bits on - and the fact that most distros don’t have a gigantic microsoft-sized coordinated team all following one shared vision, but are wired together like a kind of junkyard frankenstein from thousands of separate teams as a labour of love - means that occasionally you will need to get technical to deal with small annoyances or use-cases they didn’t think of.

Linux mint doesn’t require the terminal for almost anything. If it is required anywhere, there will be step-by-step instructions, but even then there is likely a better solution specifically for linux mint that doesn’t require the terminal.

Use the software manager and update manager and you’re set. Don’t install applications from the terminal, it will be easier to let the manager applications keep track of it all.

For super advanced stuff, sure, you might want the terminal, but you don’t need these things. If anything, it will be a good opportunity to learn.

Get a USB, put linux mint on it and boot from it just to try out. It can run without being installed on your computer.

I DO NOT want to be forced to use a terminal just to get the most outta my operating

Just walk away. Plain and simple, there’s no tinkering with Linux from the GUI.

If you want to run apps as they come from the distribution it’ll work fine, usually stable as hell. But you’re not going to be doing anything you’re going to consider interesting from the GUI.

The reason why people talk so much about the terminal is:

1. It’s easier to tell newbies “input this command” than to guide them through a GUI.
2. The terminal gives you a lot of flexibility to customise stuff.

You’ll probably want to learn the terminal for any serious customisation. However, you don’t need to deal with it in your everyday usage.

I’d suggest you to use a Live USB, like other users recommended. Linux Mint, plus plenty other distros, can run straight from the USB. It’ll be better for you to judge if you could/should be using Linux this way.

About the thousand distros, most of them don’t matter. And if you’re a newbie, stick to Mint and you’ll probably not regret it.