There was another post yesterday about this and the community recommended Mint & Pop OS the most. However, I am not looking for windows-like. I want a new & fresh experience like using a smartphone for the first time or switching from ios to android.

While I get why Linux Mint (with the Cinnamon DE) is regarded as a Windows-like, Pop!_OS is far from that. Furthermore, going from iOS to Android is arguably a smaller change than going from Windows to any Linux DE (so even the Cinnamon DE (on any distro)). Regardless, the Desktop Environment is the single most influential part of a distro to how you experience any distro. Therefore, if you actually want a new & fresh experience, then you should definitely check out DEs like Cinnamon, GNOME, KDE Plasma and Xfce^[1]^ on something like a Live USB (perhaps through the use of Ventoy). After you've experienced a bunch of DEs, you should have attained a better grasp of what you like and don't like.

Distrochooser.de recommended kubuntu to me.

While Distrochooser is cool and all, you shouldn't take it too seriously 😅. If possible, consider sharing your results on Distrochooser, that might at least provide us some pointers.

1. Too many to list actually 😅, and most of them shouldn't be of a concern to a new user (or have simply become mainstays on most distros). The most important 'block' would be the Desktop Environment, though. Furthermore, design choices like release model, independent/derivative, opinionated/blank slate, traditional/atomic etc and a distro's popularity are other important factors in making a decision; while we'd refer to none of them as "building blocks of a distro". However, if there are any "blocks" that you would describe as a hard-requirement for you, then it does make sense to look for a distro that meets those. For example, in my case; a configured SELinux and atomic upgrades^[2]^ are required. As such, the decision already boils down to like two distros 😅. The shopping experience approach would perhaps make more sense if you chose a distro with little to no defaults (à la Arch (or Gentoo^[3]^)). Finally, perhaps it's worth noting that ((Dynamic) Tiling) Window Managers' capability of leaving you in awe for the opportunities and possibilities they provide are more substantial. Thankfully, while not as feature-rich, the more established DEs do offer means to engage with (dynamic) tiling (through extensions/add-ons).
2. That's hard to find; obviously distros won't advertise what they're missing. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if they have good reasons for their respective design choices. Still, FWIW, resources like these might be helpful to some. However, you should only look at the tables, the texts found above the tables are at best outdated and perhaps even misleading otherwise. Beyond that, if you narrow the choice between just a couple of distros, then I'm sure the community would be more than willing to point you toward their differences.
3. Software I would recommend to anyone would be:
   • Distrobox; this excellent piece of software has single-handedly solved package availability across the Linux landscape. Other excellent endeavors like AppImage, Flatpak, Nix and Snap definitely have their uses and are in some aspects superior; but Distrobox' ease of use (contrary to Nix) and (almost) boundless access to packages (contrary to AppImage, Flatpak and Snap) on top of how well it integrates with the rest of your system makes it my personal MVP.
   • Flatseal; must-have if you ever plan on using flatpaks (which you definitely should consider).
4. It depends entirely on the distro you install. Assuming that you start using a distro with sane defaults (like most new users do), then unless you're using an Nvidia GPU^[4]^ (or other hardware known for causing troubles), you can start using your system however you'd like it; which for most would consist of installing the software they need. Furthermore, concerns related to bloat are a lot less significant/severe on Linux, so you should be fine unless you think the default installed file manager is bloat...
5. I actually don't know. Perhaps it might be related to creating an as homogeneous experience as possible; apps on Linux either rely on GTK or QT for their appearance/looks etc. Therefore, by foregoing one, the 'awkward' 'out-of-place'-experience that some might experience every so often would have been overcome. But this is a rare concern (I'd say). So unless you're very into how your system looks and feels, it shouldn't be a concern to you.
6. I think these questions show that you've put some thought into this and that by itself is already very commendable. And I'm actually of the opinion that asking these questions, especially for someone like you, is important. So I would definitely encourage you to continue with asking relevant questions in hopes of making the transition to Linux as pleasant as possible. As for the distros you've mentioned, chances are high that you'd be content with either one of them. However, I wonder if you're making a conscious choice; like would you be able to state why any of these should be preferred on the basis of merit rather than popular vote^[5]^ or what happened to come out of Distrochooser.

1. Important distinction: these aren't selected for how different they operate/behave compared to Windows(/macOS) but for being some of the more polished DEs found on Linux. For a more exhaustive list, refer to the one found on the ArchWiki; which still happens to miss DEs like Kera 😅.
2. I wouldn't call atomic upgrades a building block as it's ultimately a design choice.
3. Gentoo is a great distro, but I would not recommend a new user to engage with it; unless you believe you belong to the sub 1% that can make it work as their first distro. Heck, even Arch is often discouraged to new users. Though I think that Arch might be just up your alley; at least if you enjoy reading the excellent ArchWiki.
4. In which case, either the installer provided by the distro got your back and the proprietary drivers are installed or you're required to install them yourself. Steps related to these are different per distro, but reading up on your chosen distro's documentation should be sufficient.
5. Don't get me wrong; I'm not dismissing the popular vote.

So what happens is that changing the keyboard language comes together with the CPU upgrade from Intel® Core® i3-1315U to Intel® Core® i7-1360P. That's what you pay for*. I agree with you that they might have done a better job at conveying what's happening. For whatever it's worth, I didn't immediately notice this myself. Therefore I tried to contact them in hopes of resolving the issue. They responded very quickly (like within a couple of minutes) and explained what was going on. Props to them for that!

How long did you try using Vi (or any other "mode-switch vietnam-era editors with cult like followings")? Have you experimented with any starter kit/distribution/config (or whatever) to ease you in? What do you use now?

Btw, I agree that stand-alone Vi probably is too far of a departure from modern IDEs. As far as I know, it's not even possible to give it IDE-like functionality apart from a few basic ones. Both Vim and especially Neovim do a better job at bridging the distance. FWIW, Vim only exists like for three decades now, while Neovim's first release happened in 2014; almost 10 years ago.

I've already written another comment here. But I just noticed that you have edited OP's text to include that you were new to Linux. Which changes the rules of the game so much so that a simple edit of my other post wouldn't do it justice for the sake of visibility. Btw, perhaps you should have told us that earlier 😅.

So previously I had named Arch, Fedora and openSUSE Tumbleweed. These distros are still definitely worth the trouble. However, instead of Arch directly, you might wanna opt to an Arch-based distro. They often come with an installation that's done through a GUI, which you might perhaps conceive as being more intuitive. Though, there are some that argue anything Arch-related is not suited for new users. Personally, I don't buy into that. But there's definitely some truth to it in the sense that other distros might be better suited for some new users. We don't know what 'type of new user' you are, therefore we won't be able to answer that for you. However, my gut feeling tells me that you've got some potential to start out with (an) Arch(-based distro) right out of the gate. Though, I'm not very confident (yet)😅.

With that out of the way, I think the following is important to note as well:

• If you want to avoid X11, then you have to use Wayland. Which, in turn, implies that you've got to use either GNOME or KDE as your desktop environment. Unless, of course, you want to try out a tiling window manager (like Sway or Hyprland etc) right out of the gate as well. Which, again, doesn't make it easier for you to start using Linux 😅. It's definitely worth it eventually, but perhaps it's better to not make it too hard on ourselves from the get-go. Coming back to GNOME and KDE, fortunately they're very well-supported on the previously mentioned three distros. So you should be fine regardless. As to which of the two suits you best...? Well, that's very personal. An oversimplified overview would be that GNOME is polished and 'limited in regards to customization out-of-the-box' while KDE allows you to customize to your heart's content at the cost of polish. GNOME does have support for extensions that allows it to be easily customized beyond what KDE allows one. However, this comes -once again- at the cost of polish 😅. It's best to make your own mind with this. Use both of them, and come to judge them yourself.

• So I can't but notice that you're sensitive to your digital security (which is good thing 👍), but that you'd like your distro of choice to do the heavy lifting; which is totally fair. In that case, I would argue that Fedora and openSUSE Tumbleweed are better suited than Arch(-based distros), because they're distros that take security very seriously. Heck, they're the only popular 'upstream'/'independent' distros that have managed to configure SELinux for use on their distros. On Fedora this is done by default regardless, while on openSUSE Tumbleweed it can be installed at a later point. (IIRC openSUSE Aeon/Kalpa (old MicroOS Desktop) shipped with SELinux by default, but the linked article suggests otherwise 🤔.) In contrast, while you can make it work on Arch, it's not officially supported. AppArmor is still great though*.

• If security is indeed important to you, have you perhaps considered using so-called 'immutable' distros? Btw, the name 'immutable' is not entirely correct as in most cases only some parts (mainly related to base system components) are read-only during runtime; changes to said base system components (through either installing/remove a package or upgrading) happens atomically and often times requires a (soft-)reboot to actually take effect. Some 'immutable' distros even manage to be reproducible and yet some actually manage to be declarative as well. The security-benefits for this can't be overstated. If you're interested in 'immutable' distros, then it's worth mentioning that both Fedora and openSUSE offer them through Silverblue/Kinoite/Sericea and Aeon/Kalpa(/Greybeard) respectively. The exact implementation of 'immutability' across Fedora's and openSUSE's offerings are different. However, I won't go over that for the sake of brevity 😅.

Please feel free to inquire if you so desire!

Why does Linux do that’s “better” than Windows? That’s not meant to inflame anyone. More so what do you personally like better.

Linux offers me freedom and control over my systems far beyond Windows (or any proprietary OS for that matter) does. This allows me to:

• Setup a system of which its parts have been deliberately chosen by yours truly to satisfy my particular needs and my needs only. And I can make it obey whatever I will. It won't do a thing I didn't require of it, nor will it overrule any of my configs at a later point in time.

• Not have any spyware injected by the OS. Thus offering actually good privacy by default (for a change).

• More 'modern' ways of maintaining a system are only properly supported on Linux. Fully declarative systems like NixOS/Guix have yet to show up for other OSes. Furthermore, while the likes of Android, iOS and macOS do have 'immutability' (at least) sprinkled to them. Windows has yet to show the capabilities of their CorePC. One might even argue that it's uncertain if it will come out in the near future as CoreOS (10X) didn't see the light of day either. Linux, on the other hand, offers a plethora of 'immutable' distros that should suit ones needs regardless.

What can I expect to find as a casual observer?

Perhaps not much of it honestly 😅. Sure, you should find a gratis system that just works and doesn't hoard your data. Updates go smoother, it'll have improved performance on older devices. And if you actually know what you're doing, then it'll have better performance on your newer devices as well. Installing software is just one command away by default. But some of the more advanced benefits might rely on a more profound understanding, which you may or may not be interested to indulge yourself with.

DuckDuckGO for the bangs, with a custom !bang made for my favorite SearXNG instance; on which most of my 'googling' actually happens.

I'm not very well-versed into all of this, but if what you're referring to is technically known as Unified Kernel Image, then you should know that unfortunately it's currently not supported on systems that rely on ostree; thus unsupported on Silverblue. A lot of work has been gone into this over the last year, but I'm afraid we're still (at least) two major releases removed from proper UKI support. For regular Fedora, consider referring to this excellent guide.

Becase of that and your recommendation I will probably switch to silverblue.

Silverblue is incidentally also my daily-driver; custom image through uBlue's template to be more precise*.

Im a little scared of selinux (I was thinkering too much with fedora) but better with it than without.

Yup, SELinux is definitely a double-edged sword in that it's very powerful but can therefore be a bit more restrictive. Though, currently it's our only bet when it comes to confining containers as it's (vastly) superior over AppArmor in that aspect. Which explains openSUSE's recent conversion from AppArmor to SELinux for their distros that rely heavily on container workflows; like MicroOS, Aeon, Kalpa etc. Unfortunately it's not the easiest to understand, but I'm sure you'll manage 😉!

For AUR apps I will use distrobox.

Hehe, you know what's good 😛.

Due to legal reasons, Fedora is not able to distribute their distro with everything baked in to ensure (close to) maximum functionality out of the box. Notoriously, codecs required for (some of the) hardware acceleration and enabling the use of some multimedia file types are not delivered out of the box. Therefore, users are required to set those up themselves. Thankfully, RPM Fusion steps in to the rescue and makes it a lot easier for the end user to acquire these nonetheless.

But..., what if retroactively Fedora is forced to remove even more stuff and what if the solution is not directly available on RPM Fusion and thus requires (advanced) manual intervention in order to resolve the problem for the end user? Which actually happened just a few months ago with the mesa drivers*. Or what if a new Nvidia update causes troubles and you can't boot into your system? Which actually happens once every often if you don't pay attention and/or are unlucky. These are real problems that require real solutions; solutions which Fedora can't offer in the most elegant way in fear of the court (rightfully so).

This is where the "batteries included"" expression comes in. The aforementioned two problems were nonexistent on images provided by uBlue. Because problematic images are hold back by default automatically, which cautions them to resolve it ASAP and within a day (so far) the workaround gets built-in to the image and the end-user just gets the solution without ever noticing that something was wrong in the first place. Why? Because the end user's system never got the update without the workaround in the first place. An interaction unique as such within the Linux space is simply unheard of. I'm only aware of Vanillas OS that might be able to pull off something similar in the near future. Which is why I'm also very excited to see how it develops. Furthermore, as the end user you never had to go to the RPM fusion page in the first place to get/set up the earlier mentioned codecs as they were actually built-in to the image by default. That, is also part of the "batteries included" expression.

If you're interested, please consider checking out their documentation. Furthermore, please feel to inquire, if you so desire 😉 !

Somehow it looks veiny, black and kinda nsfw...

I agree that having better GUI is a generally good thing and that most of us would benefit from it. However it's false to state or believe that Linux in its totality is bereft of this. Distros like openSUSE, MX Linux and Garuda Linux have put in considerable effort into offering tools that enable one to config a lot of stuff through a GUI. However, it doesn't make a lot of sense to complain about the lack of GUIs if you (or whosoever for that matter) don't use one of these distros. Arch has minimalism as one of its design goals, so you either have to find the binaries/apps/packages (or whatsoever) that allow you to config through a GUI or you're out of luck.

(Manjaro keeps breaking itself for a laugth)

Are you perhaps using the AUR more than you should on a Manjaro installation? Just for your information; because Manjaro holds back packages for a couple of weeks, any package from the AUR might conflict with those 'outdated' packages and thus cause some breakage. If you really need those packages, then you should consider container solutions like Distrobox to resolve this. Note that trying things like installing a custom kernel won't work through Distrobox.

So the main options probably consist of:

• Just plain Arch; archinstall has made it a lot easier to install. Furthermore, after everything is set and done, it can literally be Manjaro without outdated packages and less bugs etc, or actually whatever you would like your Linux installation to be. Setting up is the most daunting part though. Fortunately, the Arch Wiki does an excellent job in providing a resource at every set of the journey. Recommended if you're not scared of setting up your system from a blank slate.

• Any other Arch-based distro, really. There are a ton of recommendations found in the other comments and there's even more if you check out Distrowatch for Arch-based distros. If you kinda know what you'd want from a future system, but can't be bothered with setting it up directly from Arch, then this might be recommended based on the specifics of your demands and to what degree existing distros align to that. For whatever it's worth, I think Garuda Linux is an interesting option for those that want to move on from Manjaro. Similary to Manjaro, it's opinionated on how your system is/should be configured. That's why it's also one of the few Arch-based distros (like Manjaro) that offers -out of the box- the means to rollback to a working system whenever anything unfortunate befalls your system, Garuda achieves this through coming pre-configured with Btrfs+Snapper. It should be noted, though, that Garuda is considered bloated by some. However only you can decide for yourself if their offering is bloated to you or not. So check out its Xfce edition -or any that sound interesting to you- for yourself, if you're interested. If you think it's interesting, but are still too much bothered by the bloat, then perhaps their Lite versions are more to your liking.

There are a lot of options beyond Arch-based distros. However, as I don't know what made you gravitate towards Manjaro in the first place and what you've come to (dis)like since, it's hard to pinpoint what exactly you'd like. If the AUR has been your main reason for using Manjaro in the first place, then it's important to note that Distrobox also grants access to the AUR from any of the other popular distros out there. So you're not confined to just using Arch(-based distros) unless you really need some custom kernel that is somehow only available in the AUR.

• If you checked out Manjaro for its unsuccessful attempt at providing a stable rolling release, then you should check out the most successful attempt with openSUSE Tumbleweed. It has a respectable amount of packages and enables users through OBS (OpenSUSE Build Service) to extend this significantly. Its installer offers the option to go for a minimal installation.
• If rolling release has scarred you, but you still want up-to-date packages, then consider Fedora. Huge community, AUR-like repo in COPR and once again a very respectable amount of packages make it definitely worth a mention. It offers the so-called Fedora Everything ISO (Network Installer) that acts as the installer for minimal systems.