Ubuntu will work just fine with a minimum of “getting basic things to work.” (...) I suggest Ubuntu.

I don't disagree with you, Ubuntu may make be easier but with it you get the worst of both worlds - no "good" and "solid" proprietary apps + questionable open-source, potential spyware and other shenanigans Canonical is known for. In that case I would rather keep using Windows and have everything working out of the box.

If one lives in a bubble and doesn’t to collaborate then native Linux apps might deliver a decent workflow. Once collaboration with Windows/Mac users is required then it’s game over – the “alternatives” aren’t just up to it. Proprietary applications provide good and complex features, support, development time and continuous updates that FOSS alternatives can’t just match.

Windows licenses are cheap and things work out of the box. Software runs fine, all vendors support whatever you’re trying to do and you’re productive from day zero. Sure, there are annoyances from time to time, but they’re way fewer and simpler to deal with than the hoops you’ve to go through to get a minimal and viable/productive Linux desktop experience. It all comes down to a question of how much time (days? months?) you want to spend fixing things on Linux that simply work out of the box under Windows for a minimal fee. Buy a Windows license and spend the time you would’ve spent dealing with Linux issues doing your actual job and you’ll, most likely, get a better ROI.

You can buy a second hand computer with a decent 8th generation CPU for around 200 € and that includes a valid Windows license. Computers selling on retail stores also include a Windows license, students can get them for free etc. what else?