God forbid you should have options.

The typical user couldn't care less about Windows VS Linux, but it makes it difference. I don't know that it fixes the issues, but it might. It's also an option you have because you're on Linux, not Windows. You get a choice, and can figure out what works for you. It isn't ironic, because that why you choose Linux. If you don't want a choice and just want the garbage MS puts out, you don't need to make any more choices. If you want options then you need to actually make choices too (though most aren't permanent, like DEs, and you can swap between them).

I was about to comment the same - shitting itself when trying to do something nonstandard is a Gnome thing, not a Linux thing :^)

I also fully understand that new users are not aware of what the different components are and "what they do" (how they influence the UX) but they very much do make or break their "Linux experience". Personally I dislike Gnome because it exposes barely any settings, and it's "simple" to the point where it feels almost like a toy to me - kinda like macOS feels. Some people might be looking for that, and I don't judge them, but I think it's important to make an informed decision on simplicity and "guardrails" vs flexibility and customization. The same goes for immutable vs "traditional", rolling vs releases, etc.

You don't need to care about or understand the details, but the choice that the "Linux ecosystem" offers is one of its best parts, and understanding the implications of the ones you make is very important. It also helps avoid getting frustrated in "Linux can't do this" situations by knowing that maybe it's just your environment - believe me, unless it's about running some proprietary code that the vendor is uncooperative about, "Linux" can do it. It might require some lines of code to glue together some pieces, but the "computing" things that "Linux can't do" are very close to 0.