I do IT support in the small town I live in. I always advocate Kubuntu / Ubuntu / Gnome (I just throw them at it for 10 mins each and whichever one they like most they get) and they are no more capable of fixing something wrong with their computer on those distros than on Windows.

But at least I can ssh into their rigs after the fact and fix them remotely. Trying to get them running teamviewer every time there is a problem on Windows is a nightmare.

Also consider the #1 reason I get called is because people install some virus or spyware or clickjacker by clicking and running random stuff off the Internet. On any Linux based distro none of that stuff works so what ends up happening is my repeat customers every 2-4 months are Windows users and the dozen or so clients I have using some flavor of Ubuntu might email me once a year like "can I run X?" and I just go look on playonlinux if its supported or not. Libreoffice opens all the old Doc and XLS files fine, their printers work, their wifi works, they can use their crappy 1995 webmail client from their ISP no problem, and they even get neat perks like having their phone rings show up in their desktop notifications if they use KDEConnect.

Please, do provide an answer. And I mean a real answer of real things they actually did, that is comparable on Windows and Linux, as opposed to marketing crap someone else told them about that they then mis-stored in their own heads as false memories.

My experience is that there is no substantial difference in the amount of "fucking around" you have to do with Windows or Linux. I had to install custom graphics drivers from third party sites, install custom keyboards, mess around with random settings, especially after upgrades between different OS versions.

Please show me an actual study instead of talking about personal anecdotes.

You have provided personal anecdotes to support your position and demanded "actual studies" to refute your position.

I do not think you are truly interested in changing your mind.

I provided personal anecdotes in response to other personal anecdotes. The point is to show that these types of arguments are flawed - of course I won't change my mind in response to others' anecdotes, when my own are different - will you?