London System vs "A busy person’s opening system"

Famous chess coach Dan Heisman wrote that one should not overemphasise the opening to much.
You will manage to get into a playable middlegame in no time with a certain amount of expierience in your opening of choice. Sure, there are openings which are considered safer (Caro Kann, London) than others (Sicilian, Grünfeld) but that shouldn't matter that much. Look for "solid openings" if the first appeals to you. Heisman argues the best thing you can do to improve on your openings is to play alot of quick games and look up were you would diviate the next time. The last part is crucial.
This way you will quickly find out your mistakes and after say 100 games you don't fall into the easy traps no more. Please keep in mind that he only advocates quick games for getting to know your opening. For anything else the time format should be as long as possible.

So this boils down to: Try both systems in quick games. See which one you like.
Which position did you understand? Did you like the positions that arose?

For the London System there is a wonderful video guide on youtube by a fantastic channel called Hanging Pawns. It should give you an overview about the different ways your opponents may play against you. I'll link it down below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_OYdWbJMKM&list=PLssNbVBYrGcCjajrI7QtQi48nKOfy-W5O

Please dont memorize the lines though. Being good in openings will only give you a playable middlegame, in which you will blunder and loose the game if you dont have good enough tactics skills. So in order of importance you should study the following:

tactics -> thought process (steps I work through to find the next move, playing slow enough) -> endgame -> positional / strategy -> openings.

Can you see why most good chess players are of the opinion that you really need no opening theory until ELO >2000? I see why this it not nessesarily a satisfying answer. So my advice is this:

Try both, chose one of them (and stick to it) and than forget openings for the next 1000 ELO points while focussing your study on thought process, tactics and endgames.

Other helpful videos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNpPYaLJLb8&t=195s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=378&v=nr-_W6Eujzg&feature=emb_title

I am really surprised how many comprehensive answers were given!
How much this chess.com community friendly for beginners!
You gave me a lot of materials to study, I will experiment with everything you provided here in this topic.
Thank you very much!

Chess.com is best place for learning chess, this thing you have realized for sure.

my blog article...

Introduction To The London System & Jobava London System...

https://www.chess.com/blog/RussBell/the-london-system

btw does it make any sense to use  software like  Dr. Wolf  or AI Factory chess that during game try to assist a player with "hints"?

I've tried Dr. Wolf sometimes he provides strange hints, very different  from CT -ART for example in some standard situations

Maybe they work hard improving on their chess instead of "learning a proper opening".

Lol this is dumb. Firstly, chess is not a sport. Don’t care what people wanna say...it’s not. Second...the London System is a proper opening. Perfect for beginners that haven’t learned how to “study a proper opening”. And you know...the world champion uses it at the highest level...so yeah

london system = too lazy to study theory

At the OP’s rating level his opponents will not be following opening main lines...so he is better off spending his time learning something else until his rating goes up. The London system is much more practical at that stage in a players “career”. I feel like people blindly hate on the London cuz it’s a repetitive system...but learning to adapt this system on a move to move basis during each game negates this stereotype and really makes it all sound foolish. Like playing the French. I find them similar in this aspect. 

asdfghjkl;'

IMHO a beginner should play open games and just stick to opening principles (especially development) instead of studying theory.