I find this interesting as I'm a beginner with only about 3 months of Linux use under my belt, whereas Ive used Windows since I was like 5 years old, and I found Debian to be a really good introduction to Linux. I was originally recommended Mint, like many are, and I found the experience to be a negative one as opposed to my later experience with Debian. (Note I have no experience with Bazzite or any other distros).

The additional 'bloat' in Mint obfuscated from me various aspects of Linux. It insulated me from learning how Linux is different from Windows, and that actually hindered me from understanding the OS. By starting with Debian I got a feel for using the CLI, setting up my drivers, package installer, and desktop environment. And, while those aspects can be complicated for new users, i think its somewhat necessary that they get a feel for them if Linux is going to be recommended as their OS.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 week ago

Debian is fine as an introduction to Linux, if that's what you want. But, as a beginner, you're going to screw up, and Debian doesn't do anything to protect you from that.

Atomic distributions let you use Linux but make it harder to shoot yourself in the foot. It's much harder to break the system in a way you can't just reboot to fix it.

It all depends on what your goal is. If your goal is to learn Linux by using it, then by all means, go for a traditional distribution. Debian is nice, but I'd go for Ubuntu. But, if your goal is to have a stable system that you can't screw up as a beginner I'd go with an atomic distribution. If your goal is to play games, Bazzite is hard to beat.

You can still learn Linux if you use an atomic distribution. Configuring and using the desktop environment is basically the same. But, you don't need to worry about your drivers, and you don't install packages the traditional way. If you want to learn those things, you can run a VM or a distrobox.