Aight. I'll give you some more then π:
- Don't expect real-time protection (Γ la Windows Defender) on Linux. While decent options do exist^[Ironically, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint on Linux is one of the best out there.], the better ones come at a premium.
- Though, related to the previous point, that's not necessarily a bad thing. The epitome of secure OSes, GrapheneOS (for mobile) and Qubes OS (for desktop), don't come pre-installed with one either. And I wouldn't be surprised if their respective maintainers would justify it by stating that proactive security is simply better than reactive security.
- FWIW, Lynis is a battle-tested security tool used to audit the system. It doesn't work on Windows, but does on macOS, Linux and some other systems. It even goes as far as granting a numerical rating that represents how well the system performs on security and notes (point-by-point) what could be improved (and sometimes even how). While I would definitely not argue that it's the be-all and end-all, the numeral rating definitely makes it easy to compare distros at a glance.
There's perhaps more to go through, but I believe we should address the elephant in the room:
How much hardening did you even apply on your current/previous OS?
Like, if you've built a literal fortress, chances are that you'll have a hard time finding a suitable distro that provides similar protection OOTB. But, if you're just your average Joe and you just ran with how it came OOTB and at least didn't try to actively sabotage/compromise their system, then... chances are that a decent amount of mainstream distros will suit you fine. I kinda hinted at it in my previous comment, but a mainstream distro could be fine if you uphold best practices. So, in that scenario, the query shifts to:
Are you willing to adopt best practices?
If you're unsure whether you'll manage given your wants/needs out of the system, then that would (again) shift the question. This time we'd have to discuss the activities you engage in and 'decide' whether there are any distros out there that can handle those gracefully and responsibly.
Etc. Etc.
Warning: as you should be aware by now, and if you haven't yet, see the security entry on the (excellent) ArchWiki and the (infamous^[Madaidan used to be a security researcher on Whonix. Whonix is one of Linux' finest when it comes to privacy and security. Heck, it's involved in the preferred way to engage on the Tor network. It's even endorsed by Edward Snowden. So, by their efforts/contributions, Madaidan should have rightfully earned the required credentials and be regarded as somewhat of an authority on the subject matter. However, this article wasn't well-received. From what I saw, the community was mostly dismissive. Disappointingly so. Which..., unfortunately shows that there's a lot more circle jerking than what we'd all admit to. Anyhow..., FWIW, there was actually a slice of the community that did take it seriously. I'd characterize them as the security-conscious. Furthermore, note that Madaidan hasn't updated it for a couple of years now. So some of the writings have clearly become outdated. So, to be clear, the situation isn't as bleak as they described in their article.]) Linux entry on Madaidan's Insecurities, this can be a pretty ugly rabbit hole. I hope this doesn't discourage you, though.
Finally, consider giving answers to the bold and cursive questions π.
Yet another very lengthy comment. I hope you will find it worth reading.
Wow, that's very insightful. Thank you for the effort!
If you allow me, I wish to provide some feedback and -if applicable- give pointers on how some of that translates to Linux.
That's probably true, but you're definitely upholding excellent practices. Most people I know don't even practice a fraction of that π . So mad props for that!
FWIW, I will assume for now that you haven't delved into Windows Registry (or stuff like HotCakeX) for the sake of hardening. Which, to be clear, is absolutely fine. But is worth noting for the eventual mapping to a suitable distro.
You can just continue doing these.
Unfortunately, I'm not aware on how we would translate this responsibly. This could be on me, though. Granted, the situation on Linux is different from how it is at Windows. Anyhow, as a non-expert, the furthest I came would boil down to:
It will π. Look into the others comments for a healthy amount of pointers on this.
I'm glad to hear that. It would otherwise complicate things a lot.
You should be fine as long as they're from trusted sources.
Unrelated to the rest of my commentary, but this is an excellent choice! You got great taste.
Keep this up π.
So, the gist is that as long as you're installing stuff from a repository, then upgrading your whole system should be a pretty straightforward, streamlined and seamless experience. Heck, it can even be automated if you want. The following is worth pointing out, though:
So, if that was your experience on Windows, then I'm somewhat optimistic that you'd be more than fine on Linux. FWIW, drivers and whatnot are mostly found within the Linux kernel itself. Thus, making Linux a very smooth experience; your drivers simply receive the updates whenever an update to the kernel has been applied. Though, while rare, exceptions do exist. And they're quite notorious:
Nothing out of the ordinary. Most of those translate pretty easily to Linux:
.deband.rpminstall files, so nothing's actually preventing you from installing it. FWIW, if you're not necessarily tied to OpenOffice, then perhaps the likes of LibreOffice (and many others) are worth mentioning.Good job on compartmentalizing your activities across multiple devices!
Fam, as this has become an absolute unit of a comment, please feel free to dismiss as you feel like and only engage with the parts you want. If you've come this far, then I'd like to express my appreciation: Thank you!