The “opposite” was just referring to those 2 aspects - Mullvad has stronger anti-fingerprinting which leads to more breakage. Librewolf has that aspect reversed. Of course, both browsers are similar overall. That’s just one detail where they prioritize differently.
Both are good. Librewolf is more like vanilla Firefox, just configured way better by default. Mullvad Browser is like a port of the Tor Browser (also based on Firefox) for the clear web (or for use with Mullvad’s VPN, or whatever). Also configured very well by default. Mullvad Browser has better anti fingerprinting stuff built-in but as a result of its unusual configuration some sites might be broken. Librewolf is kind of the opposite in that regard - sites won’t be broken but you’ll be easier to fingerprint. In any case, they both are at the top of the best Firefox variants I’d say.
Discord has a nice UI and lots of neat features, and it’s popular among gamers especially, but it can hardly be recommended. See https://www.messenger-matrix.de/messenger-matrix-en.html for a comparison with other communication programs. Yes, Discord has approximately the most red flags there can be. Discord is essentially spyware, it supports the least amount of encryption, security and privacy techniques out of them all, and everything you type, write, say and show on it is being processed and analyzed by the Discord server and probably in turn sold to 3rd parties. Discord can’t make a living from selling paid features only, they have to sell tons of user data, and since all data is basically unencrypted, everything’s free for the taking. Discord doesn’t even try to hide it in the terms of service or so. They just plainly state they’re collecting everything. Well, at least they’re honest about it. It’s a minor plus. If I had to use Discord, I’d only ever use the web browser version, and I’d at least block its API endpoints for collecting random telemetry and typing data (it doesn’t only collect what you sent, it also collects what you started typing).
Matrix, on the other hand, is a protocol. Element is a well-known Matrix client implementing the protocol. On Matrix, everything is encrypted using quite state of the art encryption. It’s technologically much more advanced than Discord is. It’s also similar, but it won’t reach feature parity with Discord. Discord is a much faster moving target, and it’s much easier for the Discord devs because they need to, oh, take care of exactly nothing while developing it further. While adding a new feature to Matrix is much more complicated because almost everything has to be encrypted and still work for the users inside the chat channels.
This is just broadly written for context. The two are similar, and you should prefer Matrix whenever possible, but I do get that Discord is popular and as is the case with popular social media or communication tools, at some point you have to bite the bullet when you don’t want to be left out of something. I’m just urging everyone to keep their communication and usage on Discord to an absolute minimum, never install any locally running software from them (maybe using sandboxing), and when you’re chatting or talking on Discord, try to restrict yourself to the topics at hand (probably gaming) and don’t discuss anything else there. Discord is, by all measurements I know, the worst privacy offender I can think about. Even worse than Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp and such stuff, because they at least have some form of data protection implemented, even if they also collect a lot of stuff, especially all metadata.
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary funding evidence.”
Choice of distro isn’t as important anymore as it used to be in the past. There’s containerization and distro-independent packaging like Flatpak or AppImage. Also, most somewhat popular distors can be made to run anything, even things packaged for other distros. Sure, you can make things easier for yourself choosing the right distro for the right use case, but that’s unfortunately a process you need to go through yourself.
Generally, there’s 3 main “lines” of popular Linux distros: RedHat/SuSE (counting them together because they use the same packaging format RPM), Debian/Ubuntu, and Arch. Fedora and OpenSuSE are derived from RedHat and SuSE respectively, Ubuntu is derived from Debian but also stands on its own feet nowadays (although both will always be very similar), Mint and Pop!OS are both derived from Ubuntu so will always be similar to Ubuntu and Debian as well), and Endeavour is derived from Arch.
I’d recommend using Fedora if you don’t like to tinker much, otherwise use Arch or Debian. You can’t go wrong with any of those three, they’ve been around forever and they are rock solid with either strong community backing or both strong community and company backing in the case of Fedora. Debian is, depending on edition, less up to date than the other two, but still a rock solid distro that can be made more current by using either the testing or unstable edition and/or by installing backports and community-made up to date packages. It’s more work to keep it updated of course. Don’t be misled by Debian’s labels - Debian testing at least is as stable as any other distro.
Ubuntu is decent, just suffers from some questionable Canonical decisions which make it less popular among veterans. Still a great alternative to Debian, if you’re hesitant about Debian because of its software version issues, but still want something very much alike Debian. It’s more current than Debian, but not as current as a rolling or semi-rolling release distro such as Arch or Fedora.
OpenSuSE is probably similar in spirit and background to Fedora, but less popular overall, and that’s a minus because you’ll find less distro-specific help for it then. Still maybe a “hidden gem” - whenever I read about it, it’s always positive.
Endeavour is an alternative to Arch, if pure Arch is too “hard” or too much work. It’s probably the best “Easy Arch-based” distro out of all of them. Not counting some niche stuff like Arco etc.
Mint is generally also very solid and very easy, like Ubuntu, but probably better. If you want to go the Ubuntu route but don’t like Ubuntu that much, check out Mint. It’s one of the best newbie-friendly distros because it’s very easy to use and has GUI programs for everything.
Pop!OS is another Ubuntu/Mint-like alternative, very current as well.
For gaming and new-ish hardware support, I’d say Arch, Fedora or Pop!OS (and more generally, rolling / semi-rolling release distros) are best suited.
Well that’s about it for the most popular distros.
Let’s say you want to compile and install a program for yourself from its source code form. There’s generally a lot of choice here:
You could (theoretically) use / as its installation prefix, meaning its binaries would then probably go underneath /bin, its libraries underneath /lib, its asset files underneath /share, and so on. But that would be terrible because it would go against all conventions. Conventions (FHS etc.) state that the more “important” a program is, the closer it should be to the root of the filesystem (“/”). Meaning, /bin would be reserved for core system utilities, not any graphical end user applications.
You could also use /usr as installation prefix, in which case it would go into /usr/bin, /usr/lib, /usr/share, etc… but that’s also a terrible idea, because your package manager respectively the package maintainers of the packages you install from your distribution use that as their installation prefix. Everything underneath /usr (except /usr/local) is under the “administration” of your distro’s packages and package manager and so you should never put other stuff there.
/usr/local is the exception. It’s where it’s safe to put any other stuff. Then there’s also /opt. Both are similar. Underneath /usr/local, a program would be traditionally split up based on file type - binaries would go into /usr/local/bin, etc. - everything’s split up. But as long as you made a package out of the installation, your package manager knows what files belong to this program, so not a big deal. It would be a big deal if you installed it without a package manager though - then you’d probably be unable to find any of the installed files when you want to remove them. /opt is different in that regard - here, everything is underneath /opt/<programname>/, so all files belonging to a program can easily be found. As a downside, you’d always have to add /opt/<programname>/ to your $PATH if you want to run the program’s executable directly from the commandline. So /opt behaves similar to C:\Program Files\ on Windows. The other locations are meant to be more Unix-style and split up each program’s files. But everything in the filesystem is a convention, not a hard and fast rule, you could always change everything. But it’s not recommended.
Another option altogether is to just install it on a per-user basis into your $HOME somewhere, probably underneath ~/.local/ as an installation prefix. Then you’d have binaries in ~/.local/bin/ (which is also where I place any self-writtten scripts and small single scripts/executables), etc. Using a hidden directory like .local also means you won’t clutter your home directory visually so much. Also, ~/.local/share, ~/.local/state and so on are already defined by the XDG FreeDesktop standards anyway, so using ~/.local is a great idea for installing stuff for your user only.
Hope that helps clear up some confusion. But it’s still confusing overall because the FHS is a historically grown standard and the Unix filesystem tree isn’t really 100% rational or well-thought out. It’s a historically grown thing. Modern Linux applications and packaging strategies do mitigate some of its problems and try to make things more consistent (e.g. by symlinking /bin to /usr/bin and so on), but there are still several issues left over. And then you have 3rd party applications installed via standalone scripts doing what they want anyway. It’s a bit messy but if you follow some basic conventions and sane advice then it’s only slightly messy. Always try to find and prefer packages built for your distribution for installing new software, or distro-independent packages like Flatpaks. Only as a last resort you should run “installer scripts” which do random things without your package manager knowing about anything they install. Such installer scripts are the usual reason why things become messy or even break. And if you build software yourself, always try to create a package out of it for your distribution, and then install that package using your package manager, so that your package manager knows about it and you can easily remove or update it later.
Already did. Purged all my Reddit bookmarks and account.
Generally: You have to be the change you want to see in the world. If you want to change others, change yourself first. I don’t think the mindset “I need to reach that big number of people over there so I’ll just be over there as well to teach them” works, or leads to the goal you want. Even though it seems reasonable at first glance. This mindset just leads to you giving the other people AND yourself more reason to never leave from there. Which is contrary to what you want. If you want others to switch to better alternatives, move yourself first, help grow the alternatives, and they will sooner or later also become interested in joining. Things like the latest Reddit and Twitter fiascos also show that no huge proprietary social media platform rules forever. The time to change to better alternatives has never been better than now.
The question is wrong: it’s not why do you “still” hate Windows. I did like Windows 7. It was the last Windows I liked. After that, it’s just a downhill enshittification spiral. The only real question is: at which point will it be too oppressive for the common user that even the most common user will try to avoid it entirely. And I fear that there’s still more than enough room for MS to make Windows worse before enough people migrate away from it.