You mean the link that aays

Universal Blue rests on the idea of bringing cloud native patterns to the operating system. We leverage standard cloud tools like the OCI standard images, Docker/Podman, and GitHub to build our images.

and assumes those terms already mean something to you? Oh wait, cloud native is a link again let's see...

CNCF is the open source, vendor-neutral hub of cloud native computing, hosting projects like Kubernetes and Prometheus to make cloud native universal and sustainable.

Great! Two more technical terms! Oh, there's another text further down the page.

As part of the Linux Foundation, we provide support, oversight and direction for fast-growing, cloud native projects, including Kubernetes, Envoy, and Prometheus.

Nope, still no explanation, but we've got another link, this time to an actual definition:

Cloud native practices empower organizations to develop, build, and deploy workloads in computing environments (public, private, hybrid cloud) to meet their organizational needs at scale in a programmatic and repeatable manner. It is characterized by loosely coupled systems that interoperate in a manner that is secure, resilient, manageable, sustainable, and observable.

Cloud native technologies and architectures typically consist of some combination of containers, service meshes, multi-tenancy, microservices, immutable infrastructure, serverless, and declarative APIs — this list is non-exhaustive.

Aaaand it's another wall of technical terms.

What is "easy to understand" about this, unless you're already familiar enough with that specific technical field that it really isn't an issue in the first place? A definition directed at experts is no explanation, and hitting a reader with a wall of terms they don't even know how to classify, let alone understand, isn't very accessible.

And on that note, you said you couldn't find a definition of Atomic on Fedora's site... So I clicked just one link from your posted link there and found this.

Sorry, I didn't think I'd have to "Get started" on a particular distro to find a note on what the whole "atomic" thing they advertise is about. Wouldn't have killed them to put that paragraph on the previous page already, just a small note at the top, to explain the selling point they're using.

Linux is going to have a LOT of terms a new user will have to learn. The idea of a cloud native image may cause a misconception, but no more so than any of the other myriad terms a new user will have to learn.

That's an issue I've complained about before: The entry barrier is too high still. People shouldn't have to learn a lot of new terms, if at all possible. In that vein, it's better to start out with distros that require less learning, and if the interest grips you, start learning and exploring from there.

But if you have to learn terms, it should be ordered from most fundamental and universal to most specific, and I'd put "cloud native" in the back half of that spectrum. You'll need to know what a file system is, for instance, may need to learn the term distro / distribution and many more, but for the immediate operation of a system, you don't need to know what OCI, Docker, Podman, Kubernetes, Prometheus, deploying, workloads or "loosely coupled systems that interoperate in a manner that is secure, resilient, manageable, sustainable, and observable" mean.

So I genuinely do recommend starting out with something less laden with technical terms, and working your way up from there. I started out with Ubuntu, now I'm using Nobara and plan to use my old spare drive to try some other flavours like Silverblue. It's not that I don't think the learning isn't worth it, it's just that it shouldn't be frontloaded.

I read your posted argument from earlier, and I want to believe you when you argue your goal is to push for Linux to be more accessible. But the reality of your arguments seem to tell a different story. You seem more interested in dying on a pointless hills while dissuading interested converts from trying what is one of the most stable and user friendly distros I've ever tried.

My gripe with Bazzite isn't whether it's user friendly, but whether its maintainers are. The founder made a point of telling people "the more I see this whining the more I want to keep it on the website", because it's an accurate definition, no matter how useless. I like reasonable discussion, I can accept personal disagreement, but what I'm seeing here is a user providing a prime example of the confusion the word causes and the founder replying to the effect of "now I want to use it even more".

That's the exact opposite of accessibility. That's someone saying "By the way, this is a barrier" and getting the reply "Yes, and people complaining about it makes me want to keep it." It's not even "Sorry, this can't be helped" so much as "I want this barrier to be there" for no good reason.

So that is a hill I will fight on, not because of the specific term but because of the culture behind it that plagues the tech sphere at large. We're building walls of technical understanding requirements instead of bridges of explanations. Some walls are reasonable, some necessary, some harmless. Some gaps are too wide for a single bridge to cross, so you'll need to take a detour over other concepts. But building walls out of spite, along with (not represented here, but also common) scoffing at those looking to build bridges or telling people looking for entry "just scale the wall", are communication culture issues that serve to isolate rather than integrate.