Don’t know where you get the idea that Linux is popular on gog? Do you mean there are often post complaining about the lack of native port to Linux?
As for your question, that’s really hard to answer as it will be subjective based on your needs and circumstances. For instance what is your user level at each? Do you have time or will to learn another. Me, I spend all day on windows machines (with some Linux boxes in the back), so when I am finished, I just want to play a few games. So I stick with windows. I have not had any issue with win 10, always get the pro version as OEM versions and other cut back versions are going to be inferior. Get open shell. Then I have a nice list of a few apps and that is it, nice clean working machine (oh, get the cpp and .net extensions too).
If you are that worried about the future, turn off updates (not generally recommended).
So for my purposes, no it’s not. I know win inside out, got my setup, all ready to roll 2mins outside the box. It would take me that long to open a browser to look at distrowatch let alone read the hundreds of different flavours or front ends for Linux.
Oh, and one thing that always seems to float up is that win 10 is not compatible, it’s nonsense. I have not had any compatability issues. Sure they stopped supporting that awful drm systems like starforce (which is likely where this myth started), but get nocd’s for that. Tell a lie, there is some compatability issues with running old 32bit exes for which you might need a virtual image.

Well, yeah. Like I've said in the past, at Windows 9x and XP times I still felt Microsoft was trying to come up with new features and ideas to make their OS more desirable to their users so that they would buy and use it (instead of e.g. OS/2 Warp or going to the Apple camp etc.). So it did feel more that MS was mainly introducing updates to benefit the user.

Nowadays I get more and more the feeling that many (but certainly not all) updates that my Windows 10 gets are to benefit Microsoft, not me, the end-user. Like adding features how they can track better what I do and somehow make money out of it, or trying to softly guide me to use their Windows Store to buy applications etc. Well ok, MS did have some of that in the past as well, e.g. by pushing Internet Explorer or some MSN Network shit to everyone's faces...

Then again I feel the same about Google and Apple, they introduce new features and updates more with the mindset "how does it benefit our company" rather than "how does it benefit our end-users".

Most Linux distros feel like those old Windowses, ie. when they get some new updates, I get a feeling they've really tried to introduce something that would benefit me (the user), and not the makers of that Linux distribution.

I said "most" because there is still e.g. Ubuntu where Canonical has clearly tried to push some of their ideas and services to the users, and how RedHat killed CentOS 8... also maybe the systemd controversy is something like that, I recall reading RedHat has been pushing systemd to all Linuxes for some of their own preferences and plans.

Linux is mostly different than Windows. If that difference is better or worse depends a lot on what you want to use it for, how you want to use it, and how much time you're willing to spend relearning some habits.

What's important to recognize is that most people have spent their entire life getting used to Windows. Sure, each new version of Windows brings major changes, but the mindset and logic behind them is still the same. You'll have built up your own mental map on how to navigate within the Windows eco-system, how to change certain types of configuration to suit your behaviour, etc - and mostly you don't think about this knowledge, but will definitely run into not knowing how to do them on Linux at first. That can be pretty off-putting.

This means that Linux is easy to adjust to for two types of people:
1) Those who don't really have much computer knowledge, only double-click an icon to start up a program, and leave it at that. For them, the shift to Linux (assuming someone else installs it for them) will be completely painless, as it's definitely much less impactful than, for example, the shift from Windows 7 to Windows 8.
2) Those who are constantly running into the limitations where Windows doesn't allow them to change things to their needs and desires, and are willing to put in the time to learn how to do things a new way. Once past the initial hurdle of all the basics that work similarly-but-not-quite-the-same, the absolute freedom of an OS that works for you rather than against you is so liberating that they'll never want to go back.

I recently upgraded my version of Ubuntu, and I really didn't like what they'd done with the scrollbars. It took me about 15 minutes to find out which theme files contained the scrollbar definitions, and what the correct way was to override those to taste. Up to now I'd only dabbled with installing new themes, none of which were to my taste - so this concept of making surgical changes in a theme, was pretty much completely new to me; yet I was understanding exactky what I was doing.

The thing with the freedom of Linux is that there's no "one" Linux, and anything you want to change, you can change at a huge number of abstraction layers.

The first layer you'll encounter is the distribution (distro) you'll install, which is a set of programs, conventions and styling selected to work well together. Ubuntu and Mint tend to be the most polished and consumer friendly - just easy to dive in - but there's literally thousands, each with their own specific niche. When you don't know your niche yet, I'd definitely recommend sticking to one of the big ones (much easier to find copy/pasteable instructions on how to tweak things without needing to have deep understanding about every layer and component in the system), but when you've seen a bit of what there is to see, and if you care, you can definitely find one which fits your needs better.

One of the choices the distro makes is for the next layer down, namely which "desktop environment" (KDE? Gnome? Cinnamon? MATE? Xfce?) and underlying "window manager" to install. This basically determines what the graphical interface looks and behaves like, and is probably the thing that's most important to your understanding of what an OS is. You can change these choices while sticking to the same distro, and the cost of some rough edges (which you can also solve with some effort), but it tends to pay to pick a distro based on the default desktop environment that you most like. But again, only if you care. If you just want something which works, pick one of the big ones, allow yourself some time to adjust to its quirks, and move on with your life.

There's endless holy wars about the "best" distro, desktop environment, etc - as many people conflate caring for themselves with needing to prove their choices to be the ultimate best ones - but I'd strongly recommend taking a step back, and enjoying that you have the potential of all these choices, while not needing to care about a single one of them, same as you never did on Windows.

As for game compatibility, gog currently has just under a thousand games (full games, not DLC) listed that work natively on Linux. I'd say 60%-ish of Windows-only games run perfectly in wine without needing to jump through any hoops. You can get that up to 90%-ish with game-specific tweaks and workarounds (for which you can find endless instructions online).
The latest DX12-only games will definitely present an issue. If you lust over those, and need to play them now, stick to Windows. If you're okay with seeing what all the fuzz was about in a year or two, then you can be pretty much assured that Wine and DXVK will have updated to (near) flawless support by then.

There is no straightforward answer to your question. It depends on both the distro of choice and what you're plans are. Will you work with it? Will you play? Or maybe both? Are you comfortable doing things with console, learning commands, going beyond the interface to do more than clicking icons executing some program or other?

Linux can be worse, better than and superior to Windows, iff properly configured and once you see how powerful it can be.

When you do not like to go down and dirty in case the kernel panics or something ungainly happens to your installation, which can happen at any given time, if you don't like to learn how things work under the hood, if you like to simply click on an installer and run things relying on what's available via your GUI of choice, just don't bother and keep using Windows. Else you should take your time trying live versions of distros you feel are compatible with you and the things you are planning on doing with that OS, or use Windows as your main and Linux as second OS until you are ready to migrate to Linux if at all.

Both, really. In gaming, it is an extra nuisance fiddling around with WINE and whatnot; In working it's even worse. I'm in academia and much of the software I use does not even have a Linux version (e.g. Nvivo or Citavi). Even when Linux got an equivalent (e.g. Libre Office), it's hardly worth it for me to risk having to redo any formatting or anything.

It depends on the reasons for which you need Linux. As Sachys commented, graphics, digital art and video editing are way behind Windows and Mac. I don't know how gaming has progressed on Linux, but up until around 10 years ago, when I was using it, gaming was terrible on Linux.

For security and/or customization, Linux is better than Windows. I'm by no means an expert, and I haven't touched it in almost 10 years, but I'd gladly go back to it if I could work on it.

Linux would probably be more popular if doing the most basic tasks in Linux wasn't a chore.

Can you offer a few examples? For the most part it is pretty straightforward, especially in Ubuntu-based distros. Linux Mint and Pop OS are two good examples in this sense.

Ah, I thought this was a "is summer just as good as winter?" type of threads - but I see you are asking about gaming in particular. Would have been nice to mention it in the title as well :P. I've been gaming exclusively on Linux for more than a year now and I'm playing the same games as I was on Windows. There is a performance overhead of course, but it's usually not that impactful. On budget gaming systems or older rigs though it might be a factor to consider. Because it does require some tinkering and has a learning curve. People that are comfortable or used to the OS doing its own thing might be somewhat put off by Linux. Though there are certain Linux distros that are rather beginner friendly. I'm a fan of Linux Mint and still use it as a power user, even after I tried Arch, Gentoo, base Debian and many others. It's easy to install and get running - after that, if you want to tinker and highly customize it, of course you can - it *IS* Linux.

If you're thinking of using something for gaming definitely go down the Ubuntu/Mint route, since they are the most supported distros in that regard. Arch fares well too, but I would not recommend it as an entry point to Linux.

This. VKD3D-proton still has a long way to go in terms of matching Windows performance in DX12 games. Horizon Zero Dawn fares very roughly now on my GTX 1080 - at about 25fps @ 1080p Medium. DX11 and below are very well supported by DXVK in general and perform well, roughly within 5-10% of their Windows performance. There are cases where Linux offers better performance than Windows too, but mostly on AMD GPUs.

I know this is unrelated to the topic, but since you mentioned it... Neither, both can be extreme, especially here. Early autumn is the best.

The simple answer is NO.
The complex answer is maybe.
And those who say Linux is better, conveniently ignore important factors.

In reality it is mostly subjective.

So it depends on how you use a PC and intend to use your PC.
If you are moving from Windows to Linux, then it is about relearning many aspects of use.
It also depends on whether you will still retain access to Windows when you need it.
If however, you are very nerdy, then Linux could be the way for you.
Linux is better at some things, Windows at others.
Windows is mainstream, and has a lot more support and apps, Linux isn't.

If your usage and projected usage is fairly basic, then Linux could be a good fit.
For example, things like browsing and email, office stuff, some gaming, music and some video and anything that Linux has a good app for or runs well in Wine.

Basic can become advanced if you are nerdy enough or willing to become so.
Many like myself though, don't consider it an easy road.

One of the most important things to consider, is support for Linux out-of-the-box by developers of games and apps and drivers, because many don't do that ... probably most, and Wine can be very hit and miss.

I'd recommend dual booting Windows and Linux, and using whatever suits your need at the time. It depends on whether the game works well with Wine.

Windows is the perfect idea to the end result of a high-tech civilization - most of its users don't know how it works, how to fix it, or how to make it better, and lastly, they don't know better. That's the price of having (or at least the illusion) that a system does everything for you (takes the control away from you) and you don't have to think.

Let's not forget, Microsoft have done everything they could/can to force people to either stay, as in locked in, and/or use dirty tricks to lower the price on computers that comes bundled with Windows to gain more marked shares.

History might have been different if Gary Kildall wasn't so inept in business and marketing...

Linux, with the exception of the desktop marked, has a lot more marked share as it's open and modular in many cases.

Linux also promotes transparency and co-operation, which has been seen as Communism by American rednecks. Propaganda directed at the least educated part of the populous is the most effective way of spreading misinformation.

TL;DR Linux is simply better in every area. The fact that Windows got to be the most popular one when it comes to games has nothing to do with it being better. Well, they both are considered bloated and slow relative to hardware leaps, but in Linux you at last have the possibility to change it as you will.

Side note: BeOS and it's adopted follower HaikuOS, is more interesting as it's scheduler is different and is more responsive. Even in the early MMX days, BeOS could handle a lot more than Windows could ever hope to simultaneously. It's strange we are still using a rather static scheduler for the most part. A scheduler should be a lot more adaptive to let games take advantage of it.

Then again, in Windows we can't ever hope to change this I'm afraid, and current software designs makes the computer as a whole slower, more bloated and less responsive despite hardware actually getting faster.

Ask 100 people and you will get 100 answers. I picked it because it was a good example of a question that would only get you subjective answers, whereas truth seekers must aim at the heart of the objective. Make it quantifiable or leave it unreliable, as some would say.

Another annoying thing that people tend to conflate is that choice of distro determines desktop. I blame the _Buntu's. Which should be labeled moreas spins rather than seperate gated distros.

Just because you start with XFCE does not mandate staying with XFCE; I could literally install Xubuntu, rip out XFCE, and run WindowMaker or something else instead.
Such as?

I'd argue that the situation for graphics, digital art, and video editing have improved, but the osmosis of information and progression to the public eye has not easily flowed. How many people know that both Blender and editors like KdenLive both recently underwent a massive UX overhaul?