there are to many options and preferences

What you need isn't what everyone needs. I suspect you'll have a very hard time finding massive numbers of windows users who only need a terminal.

I sincerely hope that you don't need one distribution for games and another for developers, Having to reboot to play games is why we've had such bad penetration for years.

Every distro needs to be able to handle all the video cards from the last decade. Lutris and Steam need to run really well everywhere or we'll take forever to get proper market penetration.

That's exactly it though. For most people using an OS isn't about using the OS but about getting stuff done.

I don't run an OS because I love writing config files and running obscure CLI commands. I run an OS because I want a working browser, text editor, development setup and games. The OS is nothing but a means to an end.

If I want to tinker, I got dozens of more fun projects in my life than trying to setup an OS.

And if there's a good GUI way to do what I need, that's a win, not a downside.

To put it differently: Do you want a hackable microwave that you can tweak and modify, where you can swap out the guts at any time, or do you want a microwave that heats your food? Most people are in the second camp, and PCs are just like microwaves a tool to get things done.

Not being forced to know your way around the terminal is an absolute win. Don't be afraid, nobody's going to take your CLI from you. It will always still exist. But dumping on people who don't want to tinker but want their stuff to work without having to google and read through manuals is just elitism and nothing to be proud of.

Yes, Arch is really stable and has been for about 10 years. In fact, I started using Arch just before they became really stable (the /usr merge), and stuck with it for a few years after. It's a fantastic distro! If openSUSE Tumbleweed stopped working for me, I'd probably go back to Arch. I ran it on multiple systems, and my main reason for switching is I wanted something with a stable release cycle for servers and rolling on desktop so I can use the same tools on both.

It has fantastic documentation, true, but most likely a new user isn't going to go there, they'll go to a forum post from a year ago and change something important. The whole point of going through the Arch install process is to force you to get familiar with the documentation. It's really not that hard, and after the first install (which took a couple hours), the second took like 20 min. I learned far more in that initial install than I did in the 3-ish years I'd used other distros before trying Arch.

CachyOS being easy to setup defeats the whole purpose since users won't get familiar with the wiki. By all means, go install CachyOS immediately after the Arch install, buy so yourself a favor and go through it. You'll understand everything from the boot process to managing system services so much better.

Exactly.

There's a difference between gatekeeping and being transparent about what's expected. I'm not suggesting people do it the hard way as some kind of hazing ritual, but because there's a lot of practical value to maintaining your system there. Arch is simple, and their definition of simple means the devs aren't going to do a ton for you outside of providing good documentation. If your system breaks, that's on you, and it's on you to fix it.

If reading through the docs isn't your first instinct when something goes wrong, you'll probably have a better experience with something else. There are plenty of other distros that will let you offload a large amount of that responsibility, and that's the right choice for most people because most people don't want to mess with their system, they want to use it.

Again, it's not gatekeeping. I'm happy to help anyone work through the install process. I won't do it for you, but I'll answer any questions you might have by showing you where in the docs it is.