Ubuntu's popularity is actually a benefit - popular things have more resources, both in terms of software/documentation, and in terms of eyeballs that can help out when things go south.
In addition, Ubuntu is a good choice because it's target audience is naive users. If you want to be a hardcore developer, you can use Ubuntu, but you're not its target audience. It also has official support lasting for years for appropriate releases, which not all distros do.
You seem to be personally offended by a lot of personal choices - for example, calling preinstalling text editors 'coercion'. I wonder what this 'coercion'-free system you're imagining looks like? Is it just a boot screen that says "insert SD card with distro installer of your choice"? Then you can install whatever you like, with no-one pushing any particular software on you.
Except it's often exaggerated. I doubt Ubuntu is even the most popular distro these days. Also, lately Ubuntu (or rather Canonical) diverged from the global Linux community with efforts like Mir and so on. So they are quite controversial, and using them as a recommended distro for new Linux users is now more questionable than before.
As for popularity, whenever I encounter projects on the web, they almost always have an ubuntu .deb (usually specifically ubuntu and not debian), with redhat/centos being in second place. It's not as common to see installation sections for other distros. At a conference, when a speaker does the who-uses-what-distro question, more hands go up for ubuntu than others. I'm not sure which distro you're thinking of when you suggest others are more popular, to be honest.
In any case, the OP's point was that choosing on popularity was a bad thing - selecting another popular distro in place of distro X would not change that line of reasoning. I disagree, for the reasons I gave: more willing hands to help out, more appropriate resources available. Given the OP is an FSF fan, maybe they go for gNewSense... which doesn't have much mindshare. "I'm having problems with my gNewSense install, can you help?" isn't going to hit as many resources as a popular distro (and on a tangent, why would you ever name your distro a homonym to the word 'nuisance'?)
> I encounter projects on the web, they almost always have an ubuntu .deb
Ubuntu got a lot of hype in the past, and Canonical put an effort in PRing it. However it doesn't really mean that it's actually most used. I never really saw some conclusive studies on that. It surely is the most PRed / hyped. Or rather was until recently. That hype cooled off somewhat lately because of various controversies like Mir. Mint is commonly perceived as most popular distro these days (I'm not a Mint user for the reference, I use Debian), though again - it's hard to prove it globally.
I don't equate PR with actual size of the user base. It's probably more proper to use the term "most used" than "most popular" for such kind of evaluation. Making a choice based on PR / perceived popularity works to some degree, but it's not a precise method therefore it can be disputed.
> What do you think is a more naif-friendly distro?
I'd recommend Mint or may be some KDE centric distro for new users, openSUSE for instance.
Mint is popular, but it's popularity is largely because it's basically a skinned, traditional-desktop version of Ubuntu - it's binary compatible, so the various .debs advertised with Ubuntu also work for Mint. So in terms of resources available, the two use the same resources (ubuntu PPAs work fine in mint, for example).
But in terms of user experience? Depends on what you want. I prefer a traditional desktop (debian/kde myself) so I'm not fond of Unity and loathe guh-nome 3. But for a naive just learning about how to deal with computers, unity might be good for them - it's pretty simple, and works the same on touchscreens or with a mouse. That would be something worth testing, actually - do the kids using these laptops work better with a Unity-style interface or a traditional desktop? Which one allows them to use their computers more effectively?
> do the kids using these laptops work better with a Unity-style interface or a traditional desktop? Which one allows them to use their computers more effectively?
Hard to say. I personally think KDE is better for both purposes (experienced users and beginners). Unity style UI is too limiting and I don't like the direction it takes.
> Mint is popular, but it's popularity is largely because it's basically a skinned, traditional-desktop version of Ubuntu
It's more than that. Mint is also not managed by Canonical, and therefore they are distanced from related controversies. They are sticking to the global community in choices like Wayland and so on.
The Unity shell is very heavy, and unlikely to perform well on a Chromebook. It's also very much non-standard in terms of APIs , is not a good cross-distro citizen, and will soon diverge even more from the base, as Canonical skip the Wayland project for their own purposes.
In addition, Ubuntu is a good choice because it's target audience is naive users. If you want to be a hardcore developer, you can use Ubuntu, but you're not its target audience. It also has official support lasting for years for appropriate releases, which not all distros do.
You seem to be personally offended by a lot of personal choices - for example, calling preinstalling text editors 'coercion'. I wonder what this 'coercion'-free system you're imagining looks like? Is it just a boot screen that says "insert SD card with distro installer of your choice"? Then you can install whatever you like, with no-one pushing any particular software on you.