Linux

installing two DE's can and will cause a lot of problems.

more like small nuisances that can be easily ignored

that installing each DE under it's own user can prevent the majority of these problems

what? DEs are usually installed system-wide, i've never heard of an user-local installation of plasma or gnome

I would recommend installing a fairly vanilla Gnome distro (like Fedora or something) and then a KDE version (most major distros have a KDE spin) in a virtual machine. Gnome Boxes is a really easy way to do that. And then just customize the shit out of both of them and see what you like best.

Gnome is more of a macOS-like experience so to me, it feels more trackpad driven (though keyboard shortcuts are plentiful). Install some extensions if you don’t like something. Someone else probably also didn’t like something.

KDE is more like Windows. I’m less familiar with it but it’s on my Steam Deck so I use it a decent amount. It’s more mouse and keyboard driven, as far as I can tell. So, that’s why I think it would be fine to evaluate in a VM.

They’re both high quality, though, so it’s really about what you prefer. I like Gnome, obviously, but I prefer to code on a smallish laptop (for portability/travel reasons) and a dock whereas a lot of people want an elaborate multi-monitor situation and a different interface. Everyone has their own workflow. Both work equally well so it’s just a matter of taste and preference. (Most Linux decisions are like that and people get weirdly angry about it but that’s part of the fun. Choose your own adventure.)

Not only that, you can use the programs from one desktop environment in the other one. Really confused me the first time I used Linux because it had installed both Gnome and KDE and I was wondering why I had two of almost every type of app. But I really liked Gnome's Solitaire.

Popular FOSS also tend to have multiple GUI options.

Technically you can replace Explorer with any other desktop shell, but you'll probably end up launching it anyway because of how many components use it.

Can be. I virtually never have issues with OpenSuse TW. Ridiculously stable.

are rolling release distros stable enough

I've been using Arch (or some flavor of it) for several years, and I've never had any serious issues that I didn't cause myself. The thing that might catch you with your pants down is if a dependency introduces a change that breaks another application, but catastrophic failures are fairly rare, as long as you're willing to learn how to maintain your system.

is it possible/easy to roll back to a previous version

Yes. The application is called Timeshift, and it's specifically designed to back up the system files to a separate partition. If your root filesystem is btrfs, it can also manage filesystem-level snapshots that you can roll back if you bugger the system.

I’ve also heard that not many people like Ubuntu because of snaps, why is that?

Well, people don't like snaps for a number of reasons, because they are forced on users, bloated and slow, Canonicals themselves are quite shady, systemd, etc.

I would rather use several different types of packages than trust one that is tied to a shady company.

You can even not use DE, some people use only Window Managers (with additional things), or even just terminal.

I haven't been a mint user for a while, but the fact that the mint folks specifically release MATE/XFCE versions is a good sign that they are tested for compatibility. You can try those versions on liveusb, too.

I'm guessing here, but the "less terminal needed" parts of Mint are probably specific tools and GUI settings managers they have put together to be more user friendly. if you search something like [name of Mint settings manager or tool] XFCE compatible, you'll likely get an explanation. You might want to check out their Matrix chat room with specific questions: https://app.element.io/#/room/#linuxmint-space:matrix.org

Thanks for your detailed reply! Note that in the following writing I've chosen to address matters in generalities and oversimplifications for the sake of readability and brevity. No need to drown you in technicalities 😅.

On KDE Plasma vs GNOME, I would like to try both out and see which I like better long-term. KDE Plasma seems a bit more familiar (closer to Windows 10) whereas GNOME is a bit more different but I'm open to using either.

That makes perfect sense. As noted by others, while installing both DEs on the same system is technically possible, it often leads to conflicts and inconsistencies. For the cleanest experience, consider dual-booting with separate installations for each DE. Since you've already installed Fedora Workstation, you might want to try KDE on a separate installation.

a laptop with an Intel i7-1360P. It's one of those 2-in-1 convertible 360 degree hinge laptops.

Your hardware should work well with either DE. For future reference, check the Linux Hardware Database and ArchWiki's laptop entries for compatibility information. Since you've confirmed the touchscreen and rotation are working, you're already past the biggest hardware hurdles!

I would say I'm open to learning how to work with the terminal and customising the distro a bit, but I don't want to do anything too out of my scope. I don't want to spend too many hours setting it up, I'd rather have something that works mostly out of the box :D

Both Fedora and openSUSE nail this balance perfectly. They provide sensible defaults that work immediately while giving you room to tinker when you're ready.

Stable as I don't want to break my system after an update. I still want an up-to-date distro though. I am open to rolling release distros, but to my knowledge those are usually less stable with more breaking changes than fixed release options.

FWIW, this is where atomic distros really shine: they offer both stability and current software through their unique update model.

Also, how are the "immutable" distros from UB different from the "mutable" distros?

First, a clarification on terminology: The term "immutable" is actually a misnomer that Fedora has moved away from. These systems aren't truly immutable – they can change, but in a controlled, atomic way. That's why Fedora now refers to them as "Atomic" systems, which better describes their update mechanism and system architecture.

Fedora offers traditional Fedora and Fedora Atomic for desktops, with Atomic including variants like Silverblue (GNOME) and Kinoite (KDE). For servers with atomic updates, Fedora offers Fedora CoreOS. Universal Blue (uBlue) enhances these atomic systems with additional features and optimizations.

The key differences between traditional and Atomic systems include:

• A read-only base system where core system files are protected from casual changes, ensuring system integrity. On traditional Fedora, you can easily remove or modify system files with commands like sudo rm -rf /usr/bin/important-file, but this fails on Atomic systems with an "Error: Read-only file system" message.
• Many system changes are tracked, which enables you to 'undo' these changes and return to a cleaner state. This tracking mechanism is what makes factory reset features possible, which are being investigated for these systems. This is surprisingly rare in Linux, with few exceptions like Pop!_OS and TUXEDO OS.
• Atomic updates mean changes either occur or don't – no half-updated broken states. On traditional systems, interruptions can leave you with partially updated components (like an updated kernel but broken system libraries), while on Atomic systems, the previous deployment remains fully intact and bootable if an update fails.
• Deployment tracking keeps multiple system versions you can switch between using commands like rpm-ostree status to view deployments and rpm-ostree rollback to return to a previous state.
• Rebasing capability lets you change your entire system base without reinstalling. For example, you can switch from Silverblue to Kinoite with rpm-ostree rebase fedora:fedora/42/x86_64/kinoite.

uBlue enhances these Atomic systems with proactive maintenance. A great example: when the kernel 6.13 update introduced regressions affecting flatpaks, uBlue maintainers pinned the kernel to 6.12, protecting all users while traditional distro users experienced crashes documented in Fedora discussions, Reddit, and EndeavourOS forums.

uBlue also offers streamlined setup with better onboarding than almost any other distro, simplified handling of troublesome hardware, and purpose-built variants optimized for gaming, development, and other specific use cases.

Does it just mean that you're unable to change system-level settings and such/break anything with a mistyped terminal command?

It's more nuanced than that. While changing /usr contents is restricted, modifying /etc works the same as in traditional systems (though changes are tracked). The real protection comes from the deployment system - even if something breaks, you can easily roll back to a working state.

What are the downsides to using an immutable distro?

There are some trade-offs to consider:

• Traditional Fedora uses a single approach for software management, while Atomic systems use a combination of methods including Flatpaks, containers, and layering. This creates a more compartmentalized but potentially complex software ecosystem.
• There are also some system limitations to be aware of. Native messaging in browsers installed as flatpaks require workarounds, kernel module options are limited to uBlue's own akmods repository, and there's no current support for UKI. Granted, I don't expect you to engage with the latter two anytime soon.
• Additionally, with uBlue, you're trusting their maintainers alongside Fedora's team, though uBlue is mentioned in Fedora's documentation.

For someone wanting stability without sacrificing current software, uBlue variants (Bluefin for GNOME, Aurora for KDE, or Bazzite for both) offer significant advantages, though standard Fedora remains excellent if you prefer a conventional approach. Your successful experience with Fedora suggests you're on the right track!