> Firs cons: lack of key apps (Microsoft Office and Adobe Creative Suite).

Propitiatory commercial applications, sure. But there's plenty of open source counterparts. I've been using LibreOffice (and OpenOffice before then) for years and while it does lack a lot of polish compared to MS Office most of the issues with it are really just cosmetic. Plus I never liked the ribbon bar anyway. Adobe Creative Suite is a bigger problem. I have heard of professionals uses open source counterparts and getting on well with it but the last thing a person wants is technology getting in the way of their creative process (a sentiment I'm intimately familiar with from a music composition perspective).

Ultimately though, if you're unwilling to try changing muscle memory to use open source applications then Linux is never going to be the right fit. The problem there though isn't that it's not possible to do something on Linux but rather than you just more comfortable with Windows. And that's fine -- but it is literally just habit rather than a technical reason.
> Fourth cons: Why do I need to look for the specific distribution version of a program? I can install a Windows XP program in Windows 10. I can even install a Windows 95 program in Windows 10. But I have to look for the specific version of Ubuntu 20.08 of a program. The version for Ubuntu 17.06 would not work.

> Second cons: lack of OEM produced drivers, which means that some things work worst than in Windows. Example, energy management for my ThinkPad.

I honestly prefer Linux for driver support. Windows was such a pain in the arse with having to install 3rd party drivers (though that's less the case these days) where as on Linux everything just worked with the default install.

That said, you do sometimes find edge cases where drivers are missing functionality but it's not all that common.

With regards to battery life, I a lot of that will also be down to tuning. Windows ships some pretty aggressive tuning features where as Linux basically ships untuned. You can do that manually and it is a bit of a joke that users have to do it manually. But I've found losing an hour or two off a 10 hour run time isn't all that painful.

> Third cons: it seems to me that most things are more complicated to do than in Windows. Case in point, even if we do not consider the wgets, installing mkvtoolnix and vmware.

I actually find the opposite to be true. Most things are more complicated to do in Windows. Developer tools, programming language support, containerisation/docker, debugging tools, networking tools, automation (this is by far the worst thing about running Windows for me), resolving issues (far easier to fix a broken Linux install), documentation (far better documentation in Linux), error reporting, etc.

Updates are a key thing too. Windows: you need a thousand different update managers running on start up. You need to regularly reboot due to Windows update (which forcefully locks you out of your system whether you want it to or not). Linux: everything is managed from one package manager and no reboots required (unless it's a kernel update but even then it installs it without locking you out and the reboot is just to load the new kernel)

Another bugbare is having to browse for applications on the internet, avoiding phishing sites for popular software, then manually downloading and installing it. Repeatedly for some applications that don't have update managers too. Users shouldn't be doing this in 2020 -- it's just a crap way to manage software.

> Fourth cons: Why do I need to look for the specific distribution version of a program? I can install a Windows XP program in Windows 10. I can even install a Windows 95 program in Windows 10. But I have to look for the specific version of Ubuntu 20.08 of a program. The version for Ubuntu 17.06 would not work.

That's why you use package managers ;)

> Again. I can for sure use Linux if needed to (I am currently trying BSD on my ThinkPad), but if given the chance, I feel much more comfortable and productive in Windows.

BSD is going to be much more painful for you than Linux given the complaints you're making about Linux. You're better off trying a Mint Linux. Or if you don't mind the one time pain installing Arch then go with that (Arch has no installer, you have to do it all manually. Which sucks for non-techies but once you're over that hurdle it's probably the most painless OS I've ever ran over long periods of time)

I don't rate Ubuntu much as a distribution. Canonical spend too much time reinventing the wheel and not enough time fixing the common complaints with Linux (though `snap` is an attempt at that but unfortunately even there Canonical's solution is hamfisted).

Ultimately though, it all boils down to habits and personal preferences rather than X being better than Y.