tuxedo/system76/metabox/etc are all rebadged Clevo ODM designs.

Yup, clearly. /s

The support that these vendors put in for Linux is miniscule

Wow, that's a bold claim if anything. First time seeing a Pop!_OS-denier, I assume you also deny the existence of COSMIC? And these are just some of the work done done by System76 only.

the hardware is “fine” at best

Another bold claim; one which only holds true if merely Apple's finest go beyond "fine".

I for one love my desktop 3700x and 3060ti mobile stuffed into a laptop chassis. No compromises were made on this hardware.

Hmm..., very interesting! I'm totally oblivious of the existence of such a thing. If that is your benchmark, then I can actually understand what you meant with your earlier claim. Please feel free to enlighten me on how this works 😊.

Conversely, Dell and Lenovo laptops tend to have very good Linux support and can be had relatively cheaply, especially if you get something that isn’t bleeding edge.

I don't deny this. However, none of Dell's laptops with decent Linux support have an AMD CPU (or one of Intel's latest Meteor Lake CPUs). Thus, at least in terms of battery life, it's not desirable; with battery life being something that OP has explicitly mentioned. As for Lenovo, the Thinkpad-line (the one generally recommended for its Linux-support) with AMD CPUs starts at a very high price. At which point, the "fine" hardware from the Linux-first vendor not only starts to be attractive but highly desirable by comparison.

Ultimately, any discussion on this would boil down to cost vs convenience. As OP hasn't explicitly stated anything on this regard, it seems unproductive to delve into this further. However, strictly speaking, I have to agree with you that the Linux-first vendors are (in almost all cases) more expensive. Thank you for pointing that out for OP.

Username checks out

If you want to use Linux on your laptop, is there any reason not to go for 'dedicated' Linux laptops?

FWIW, I haven't seen these Linux-first vendors being mentioned under your post yet: NovaCustom and Star Labs.

virtualization

Honestly, I don't know. Though, I'd reckon there would be any significant difference between distros.

stability

Depends on what you mean with stability. If you meant it like how "stable" is used in "Debian stable", then it would be any distro with a release cycle that chooses to not continuously deliver packages; but instead chooses to freeze packages and hold off updates (besides those related to security) for the sake of offering a relatively polished experience in which the behavior of the distro is relatively predictable. Some distros that score good on this would be Debian stable and openSUSE Leap. It's worth noting that Distrobox, Flatpak and Nix allow one to have newer packages on these systems if desired.

If, instead, you meant that the distro is less likely to break upon an update, then it's important to note the following:

• While you shouldn't expect breakage to happen in the first place, unfortunately it's realistic to expect it every so often (read: 0-2 times a year on non-stable distros).
• If you have a lot of packages, then it's more likely that at least one of them causes some breakage.
• Technically, every update is a potential 'breakage-moment'.
• Packages that haven't been installed through the official/native repos are more likely to cause breakage.
• Relying on Distrobox, Flatpak and Nix for (at least some of) your packages should benefit the stability of your base system.
• (GRUB-)Btrfs+Timeshift/Snapper allows one to create snapshots one can easily rollback to in case of breakage. Therefore it's worth seeking out a distro that configures this by default or set it up yourself on whichever distro you end up using (if it isn't included by default).
• So-called 'atomic'^[1]^ distros are (generally speaking) more resistant to breakage, but (arguably) they're less straightforward compared to traditional distros. It's still worth considering if you're adventurous or if your setup is relatively simple and you don't really feel the need to tinker a lot. Don't get me wrong; these atomic distros should be able to satiate ones customization needs, it's just that it might not be as straightforward to accomplish this. Which, at times, might merely be blamed on lackluster documentation more than anything else.^[2]^

As for recommendations you shouldn't look beyond unadulterated distros like (Arch^[3]^), Debian, Fedora, openSUSE (and Ubuntu^[4]^). These are (in almost all cases^[5]^) more polished than their respective derivatives.

speed

Most of the distros mentioned in this comment should perform close enough to one another that it shouldn't matter in most cases.

If you're still lost, then just pick Linux Mint and call it a day.

1. More commonly referred to as 'immutable'. Atomic, however, is in most cases a better name.
2. If you're still interested, I'd recommend Fedora Silverblue for newcomers and NixOS for those that actually know what they're getting into.
3. I believe that one should be able to engage with Arch as long as they educate themselves on the excellent ArchWiki. It might not be for everyone, though. Furthermore, its installation (even with archinstall) might be too much for a complete newbie if they haven't seen a video guide on it.
4. Ubuntu is interesting. It has some strange quirks due to its over-reliance on Snap. But it's worth mentioning, if you don't feel like tinkering.
5. With Linux Mint (and Pop!_OS) being the clear exception(s).

i’d like to try gnome or kde plasma

I'm surprised to see that no one has mentioned the following yet:

"KDE Edition

In continuation with what’s been done in the past, Linux Mint 18.3 will feature a KDE edition, but it will be the last release to do so.

I would like to thank Kubuntu for the amazing work they have done. The quality of Plasma 5 in Xenial made backports a necessity. The rapid pace of development upstream from the KDE project made this very challenging, yet they managed to provide a stable flow of updates for us and we were able to ship good KDE editions thanks to that. I don’t think this would have been possible without them.

KDE is a fantastic environment but it’s also a different world, one which evolves away from us and away from everything we focus on. Their apps, their ecosystem and the QT toolkit which is central there have very little in common with what we’re working on.

We’re not just shipping releases and distributing upstream software. We’re a product distribution and we see ourselves as a complete desktop operating system. We like to integrate solutions, develop what’s missing, adapt what’s not fitting perfectly, and we do a great deal of that not only around our own Cinnamon desktop environment but also thanks to cross-DE frameworks we put in place to support similar environments, such as MATE and Xfce.

When we work on tools like Xed, Blueberry, Mintlocale, the Slick Greeter, we’re developing features which benefit these 3 desktops, but unfortunately not KDE.

Users of the KDE edition represent a portion of our user base. I know from their feedback that they really enjoy it. They will be able to install KDE on top of Linux Mint 19 of course and I’m sure the Kubuntu PPA will continue to be available. They will be able to port Mint software to Kubuntu itself also, or they might want to trade a bit of stability away and move to to a bleeding edge distribution such as Arch to follow upstream KDE more closely.

Our own mission isn’t to diversify as much as possible in an effort to attract a bigger chunk of the Linux market, and it’s with a bit of sadness that we’re letting this edition go. We focus on things we do well and we love doing to get better and better at doing them. KDE is amazing but it’s not what we want to focus on.

With Linux Mint 18.3, we’ll release one more KDE edition. I wanted this announcement to come before the release. It will hurt its popularity of course, but I wanted to give users time, either to react right now or to take their time, upgrade and adapt to this later on. I’m sure this edition will be missed and I hope its users understand our decision."

From this Linux Mint blog post*.

Note that this doesn't mean that you can't use KDE Plasma (or GNOME for that matter). Though you have to be aware that you'll be on your own whenever something breaks. And if you have to ask how to change Desktop Environment in the first place, then I think that you might not be ready yet for such a ride. Instead, consider using a distro that actually does offer GNOME and/or KDE Plasma editions of its distro; the likes of Fedora, openSUSE and Pop!_OS come to mind.

I've already written another comment here. But I just noticed that you have edited OP's text to include that you were new to Linux. Which changes the rules of the game so much so that a simple edit of my other post wouldn't do it justice for the sake of visibility. Btw, perhaps you should have told us that earlier 😅.

So previously I had named Arch, Fedora and openSUSE Tumbleweed. These distros are still definitely worth the trouble. However, instead of Arch directly, you might wanna opt to an Arch-based distro. They often come with an installation that's done through a GUI, which you might perhaps conceive as being more intuitive. Though, there are some that argue anything Arch-related is not suited for new users. Personally, I don't buy into that. But there's definitely some truth to it in the sense that other distros might be better suited for some new users. We don't know what 'type of new user' you are, therefore we won't be able to answer that for you. However, my gut feeling tells me that you've got some potential to start out with (an) Arch(-based distro) right out of the gate. Though, I'm not very confident (yet)😅.

With that out of the way, I think the following is important to note as well:

• If you want to avoid X11, then you have to use Wayland. Which, in turn, implies that you've got to use either GNOME or KDE as your desktop environment. Unless, of course, you want to try out a tiling window manager (like Sway or Hyprland etc) right out of the gate as well. Which, again, doesn't make it easier for you to start using Linux 😅. It's definitely worth it eventually, but perhaps it's better to not make it too hard on ourselves from the get-go. Coming back to GNOME and KDE, fortunately they're very well-supported on the previously mentioned three distros. So you should be fine regardless. As to which of the two suits you best...? Well, that's very personal. An oversimplified overview would be that GNOME is polished and 'limited in regards to customization out-of-the-box' while KDE allows you to customize to your heart's content at the cost of polish. GNOME does have support for extensions that allows it to be easily customized beyond what KDE allows one. However, this comes -once again- at the cost of polish 😅. It's best to make your own mind with this. Use both of them, and come to judge them yourself.

• So I can't but notice that you're sensitive to your digital security (which is good thing 👍), but that you'd like your distro of choice to do the heavy lifting; which is totally fair. In that case, I would argue that Fedora and openSUSE Tumbleweed are better suited than Arch(-based distros), because they're distros that take security very seriously. Heck, they're the only popular 'upstream'/'independent' distros that have managed to configure SELinux for use on their distros. On Fedora this is done by default regardless, while on openSUSE Tumbleweed it can be installed at a later point. (IIRC openSUSE Aeon/Kalpa (old MicroOS Desktop) shipped with SELinux by default, but the linked article suggests otherwise 🤔.) In contrast, while you can make it work on Arch, it's not officially supported. AppArmor is still great though*.

• If security is indeed important to you, have you perhaps considered using so-called 'immutable' distros? Btw, the name 'immutable' is not entirely correct as in most cases only some parts (mainly related to base system components) are read-only during runtime; changes to said base system components (through either installing/remove a package or upgrading) happens atomically and often times requires a (soft-)reboot to actually take effect. Some 'immutable' distros even manage to be reproducible and yet some actually manage to be declarative as well. The security-benefits for this can't be overstated. If you're interested in 'immutable' distros, then it's worth mentioning that both Fedora and openSUSE offer them through Silverblue/Kinoite/Sericea and Aeon/Kalpa(/Greybeard) respectively. The exact implementation of 'immutability' across Fedora's and openSUSE's offerings are different. However, I won't go over that for the sake of brevity 😅.

Please feel free to inquire if you so desire!

I'm not very well-versed into all of this, but if what you're referring to is technically known as Unified Kernel Image, then you should know that unfortunately it's currently not supported on systems that rely on ostree; thus unsupported on Silverblue. A lot of work has been gone into this over the last year, but I'm afraid we're still (at least) two major releases removed from proper UKI support. For regular Fedora, consider referring to this excellent guide.

Yup. "Due to how lightweight coreboot is, it will offer better performance and lower power consumption. For example, the LabTop Mk IV combined with coreboot will deliver approximately 8% more performance and around 20% longer battery life (with a record of 13 hours and 42 minutes for general use)."

Due to legal reasons, Fedora is not able to distribute their distro with everything baked in to ensure (close to) maximum functionality out of the box. Notoriously, codecs required for (some of the) hardware acceleration and enabling the use of some multimedia file types are not delivered out of the box. Therefore, users are required to set those up themselves. Thankfully, RPM Fusion steps in to the rescue and makes it a lot easier for the end user to acquire these nonetheless.

But..., what if retroactively Fedora is forced to remove even more stuff and what if the solution is not directly available on RPM Fusion and thus requires (advanced) manual intervention in order to resolve the problem for the end user? Which actually happened just a few months ago with the mesa drivers*. Or what if a new Nvidia update causes troubles and you can't boot into your system? Which actually happens once every often if you don't pay attention and/or are unlucky. These are real problems that require real solutions; solutions which Fedora can't offer in the most elegant way in fear of the court (rightfully so).

This is where the "batteries included"" expression comes in. The aforementioned two problems were nonexistent on images provided by uBlue. Because problematic images are hold back by default automatically, which cautions them to resolve it ASAP and within a day (so far) the workaround gets built-in to the image and the end-user just gets the solution without ever noticing that something was wrong in the first place. Why? Because the end user's system never got the update without the workaround in the first place. An interaction unique as such within the Linux space is simply unheard of. I'm only aware of Vanillas OS that might be able to pull off something similar in the near future. Which is why I'm also very excited to see how it develops. Furthermore, as the end user you never had to go to the RPM fusion page in the first place to get/set up the earlier mentioned codecs as they were actually built-in to the image by default. That, is also part of the "batteries included" expression.

If you're interested, please consider checking out their documentation. Furthermore, please feel to inquire, if you so desire 😉 !

Somehow it looks veiny, black and kinda nsfw...

I agree that having better GUI is a generally good thing and that most of us would benefit from it. However it's false to state or believe that Linux in its totality is bereft of this. Distros like openSUSE, MX Linux and Garuda Linux have put in considerable effort into offering tools that enable one to config a lot of stuff through a GUI. However, it doesn't make a lot of sense to complain about the lack of GUIs if you (or whosoever for that matter) don't use one of these distros. Arch has minimalism as one of its design goals, so you either have to find the binaries/apps/packages (or whatsoever) that allow you to config through a GUI or you're out of luck.