A lot of the hate in this thread seems unfounded. While this video touches on some things that the community is insecure about, I think it does a good job of providing relevant and true facts that someone considering the switch should know:

For someone not sure which distro to choose, they get:

• a warning about listicles and llms being unreliable resources
• a warning about a distro that is commonly recommended for gamers that has made the unfortunate decision to ship beta software in a release labeled as stable
• a showing of two better alternatives

For someone wondering about game compatibility, they learn:

• proton db is a useful resource, and if an online multiplayer game says “borked” you’re not going to get it working. If that’s a deal breaker for you then you should stop here
• for a good gaming experience outside steam deck you’re going to need to be comfortable with setting launch flags. If that’s a deal breaker, stop here
• Other than the borked one, all games they tried got running without more hassle than some launch flags that were easily found in proton db. I would actually call this charitable since they didn’t need to mess with different proton versions at all which is common

For someone who has used Linux on servers at work, but hasn’t tried it as a primary desktop they learn:

• you are Luke, if nothing above was a deal breaker, you’ll do fine

For someone who has never used Linux at all they learn:

• Don’t pick pop os like Linus
• if you pick bazzite like Elija and nothing above is a deal breaker, you’ll be alright

All of this information is valuable, relevant, true, and important for someone to be aware of before they dive in. I say all this as a gamer that’s been playing exclusively on Linux for over a year now. It is not an experience without friction, to me that friction is worth it. If someone else doesn’t think it’s worth it, I’d rather they not switch right now, rather than switch and have a bad time. Maybe in a couple years Valve will be able to reduce the friction in the broader ecosystem the way they did on the deck. Until then it’s better not to bring people in that are going to be unhappy with the current state.

Ah, yes in that case it does indeed seem to suggest that an individual member state would be unable to unilaterally apply a stricter right-to-repair standard than what is specified elsewhere in this law.

While that does take some tools off the table for individual states to strengthen right to repair, the intention here does not seem to be a desire to prevent these measures, but to keep them standardized to keep trade between members smooth. Based on other EU legislation I’m aware of I suspect that the repairability standards they’ve laid out are far better than what I would find anywhere on my continent, and member states always have the option to work together to further strengthen these provisions across the Union.

IANAL and I haven’t dug into the text of the law beyond your quote, but I think the key here is “for reasons of non-compliance with national performance requirements relating to product parameters referred to in Annex I covered by performance requirements included in such delegated acts.” To me this is saying “the standards for performance requirements laid out in Annex I override any requirements individual members laws indicate for the same parameters, so those requirements can no longer be used to require products to meet different requirements for these parameters”

So if you are refusing a product from the market for a parameter that is not referred to in Annex I and not a “performance” requirement, then that’s theoretically allowed. Depending on the rest of the text, there’s a good chance that this leaves room for right-to-repair requirements, unless Annex I already has repairability requirements defined, or unless the law is written to define “performance” in a way that includes repairability.