Wrong. Mint have two versions. One is static, based on Ubuntu and have to be upgraded on every new version, the other one is called LMDE (Linux Mint Debian Edition), based on Debian directly and is a rollng release.

For Manjaro, I never tested it myself, but I know it's based on Archlinux that I use(d), and I'll not recommend this one to a beginner even if it's an awesome distro. But maybe they was able to make Manjaro really easy and user-friendly.

Time will tell. We'll see the next couple of years what kind of growth or lack there of Linux has.

Whichever way it goes, patience will be a prerequisite in the meantime. It took them about 4 years to release the HOMM II Windows version. :P

If you are going for LMDE, better already go all the way to Debian testing with KDE. Out of desktop environments KDE is the most flexible and feature rich. Debian can require some learning, and testing can be sometimes rough on the edges. But in general it's very usable. It's worth it.

Not sure if this was mentioned already, but Shadowrun Returns will soon be released in the Humble Store (DRM free Linux version). So again, another game with no point getting it on GOG...

When I purchased "Race the Sun" from GOG I was able to register on the game's official website and download the Linux version of the game. I would love to see this more often because I do like to buy from GOG but it is pointless not to offer Linux versions when they already exist and other vendors include them.

I don't know, I never used LMDE.
About Debian I disagree on one point : it's less complicated than what peoples often think, and there are lots of resources for Debian on Internet…but for Ubuntu too. And Ubuntu docs can be applied to Debian most of the time.

About KDE…for my part, I just dislike it and find it unintuitive. Gnome 2 was very fine before. Gnome 3 was not very mature at start but become pretty good now. Or there is Enlightenment (E17), very light, beautiful and so on.
Or for peoples which like to configure things on a very precise way : Openbox, Fluxbox, ion3 and so on.

For myself, I just now use Gnome 3 most of the time. It works great out-of-the-box, you can add couple of extensions if needed and it's very ergonomic at my point of view :)

Yea, Linux Mint does include Linux Mint Debian Edition. I don't know much about it, however. Does it offer seamless graphics driver updates? I used to use openSUSE and know for a fact that openSUSE Tumbleweed (rolling release version of openSUSE) still requires you to install new graphics drivers yourself. Installing graphics drivers can get messy, hence why I adore Manjaro so much. Manjaro does indeed make everything rather easy.

Yes, there are a lot of resources for Debian, and community in general is helpful. But even though I'm using it for quite a while already, small issues here and there in testing make me wonder how good can a non technical person handle them. Even for me this can take time (going to the wiki, searching for answers and tricks and so on).

Since Debian testing is a rolling distro, there are issues which come along with that. A simple example: when you do system upgrade, what is the preferred way? There is no one prescribed method. In KDE there is apper for GUI, but I use apt-get update && apt-get dist-upgrade. And someone (not the system) has to remind you to install apt-listbugs and apt-listchanges which will warn you if any particular update contains a serious reported bug or regression. One has to then figure out how to prevent that package from upgrading if necessary. How would a non technical person know anything about this by default? However Debain testing is still positioned as to be suitable for everyone, and to some degree it is.

Another thing, upgrades often leave behind automated packages which aren't needed, and it proposes to call apt-get autoremove on them. That's fine, but doing that leaves behind configuration files. Who could have known that one has to run it as apt-get autoremove --purge... I just found out about it very recently. I still consider Debian to be a very worthy choice though, if one is willing to invest time in learning it, as various things come along.

It's the flexibility of KDE that I like, and their proper approach to design. They don't pile all this mobile nonsense in the desktop interfaces, they have Plasma Active as a separate design approach for tablets. Gnome 3 unfortunately suffered from introducing excessive minimalism driven by the retrofitting mobile ideas into the desktop interface.

1/ Debian testing isn't a rolling release. It slightly receive updates 'till it becomes the new stable one, then it doesn't move anymore. And testing doesn't exists couple of months after the release of a new stable.
2/ The Debian project recommend aptitude over apt-get excepted to move from a major version to another which recommend to use apt-get distupgrade.
3/ You've to be crazy to put a beginner and non-technical guy on a testing version. For those peoples, it's stable, nothing else.
4/ For the place configurations files take (couple of bytes, maximum, let's say, 20KB?) it's not really a problem.
5/ Test the last version of Gnome 3 (3.10), it's now a lots more mature that what I guess you imagine ;)

Debain testing is supposed to be rolling ideally. In practice it's semi-rolling, since release freeze periods in Debian became huge in the recent years. It's a serious problem actually, and Debian developers proposed some ways to improve that: https://lwn.net/Articles/550032/
In normal situation, freeze period could be very short, and Testing could be a fully rolling distro.

That's my feeling as well (that Testing is still somewhat rough for non technical users), however Debian for a while positions it as a general purpose everyday distro. See: http://thumbnails.visually.netdna-cdn.com/understanding-debian_502916edea97b_w1500.png
and note how Testing is proposed for general users. Stable is not suitable because it's updated fairly rarely. It's a server distro, not a desktop oriented one. Unless you want to use backports. I think new Debian project leader mentioned something about positioning Testing as wide use general purpose as well: http://www.debian.org/vote/2013/platforms/lucas

Still, I dislike unnecessary clutter :)

It could have improved from the early days of Gnome 3 of course. I might give it a try in some VM.

Fiddeling around with release cycles and just let the users manage the "risk vs bleeding edgeness" (stable, unstable, testing) themselves are ugly workarounds. The correct solution which fix all (at least most) of the problems, is core/system to application separation, also called half-rolling release ...or platform approach. For good luck this idea gained recently SOME understanding & traction in the linux ecosystem, merely 10-20 years after all other major desktop OS introduced it already successfully. :/

Those aren't workarounds, those are release cycles designed for different purposes and I see nor problem in having those differences. Stable is perfect for servers. Red Hat does the same with RHEL. But it's not suitable for desktop normally. Rolling distros are OK for desktop, but some might prefer something in between possibly.

About separation of the core system from some applications - this was already mentioned above (the Docker project: http://www.docker.io). Red Hat is going to include that by default in the future: http://blog.docker.io/2013/09/red-hat-and-docker-collaborate/
So I see no problem with understanding of this idea. The point is, you don't need that separation in every single case. It should be used when needed. It looks like GOG's use case with long term support they want to achieve fits it pretty well.

And, other OSes never introduced it successfully. See all the "add Windows XYZ compatibility" threads on GOG. Linux is actually innovating here.

All I want from GOG for Christmas is for GOG to introduce support for Linux.

Those are workarounds, as you describe it yourself above: a user wants bleeding edge apps AND a stable system. None of the provided options (stable, testing, unstable) provides both. The user has only the option of selecting a bad compromise, where Macos, Android, Windows have actually a solution, separation & specific upgrade cycles.

I agree you don't need separation in every case: for instance, in the embedded, server or super computer OS use case. But you NEED it in the single user/desktop/PC use case, this should be finally hammered into the minds of the linux ecosystem developers... finally! (Also, I'm aware and very happy because of the recent changes in this direction in the linux ecosystem e.g. with docker.)

Sure, its not perfect but they try at least hard and they HAVE policies! Linux is not even trying to provide compatibility, neither over time nor over the space of the distros. Nothing. The windows introduced layer is at least so successfully and working that linux copied this layer (also as something similar is not available), the result is called WINE.

What I meant is, that even for the desktop, you don't need it in every case, since such separation comes with some price (even though it's a light virtualization). So when it's needed - it can be used, when not - there is no point. But at least it's good that such option is going to be available.

As an example, let's say GOG releases a game that depends on library A. They release it in a container and long term support idea. After some time, library A gets updated in backward compatible manner introducing optimizations and bug fixes. However the game run in the container will still use the old version (unless GOG is going to keep track of that updating these containers with newer middleware, which I doubt they would), while it could run natively and benefit from the improvements. In other cases changes can be breaking, then container would be the proper way to continue using it. So it's a tradeoff. What would be ideal is a way to run something with or without the container optionally to get the most optimal result when available.