I labeled some of the lesser known logos. The criteria are arbitrary and I made this based on how much I liked using it.
Note that Fedora Sway Atomic isn't bad, but I had a bad experience because I was trying to install NIri on it and it clearly wasn't meant for that. Basically, it's just not for me.
I wanted to rank Manjaro low because I heard bad things about it, but I think I used it for like a few minutes because I wanted to try Gnome, and I didn't like Gnome after trying it and didn't want to deal with uninstalling all the Gnome stuff manually, so I just hopped to another distro.
Why did you try so many different distros? For me it was RedHat first, then I switched to Debian(because "no corporations" sentiment, technically RH was ok) somewhere 20 years ago and use it since then.
I thought this was pretty normal for Linux nerds. Iβve tried loads but I keep coming back to openSUSE.
It's absolutely normal and should resolve itself eventually.
Why do hikers travel to different mountains to conquer?
Because hiking is the goal for hikers, changing scenery is just to make things less tedious.
What's the reason for changing distros? (Except of course for the distros that offer completely different approach like switching Debian-Gentoo-LFS might be of some interest)
I think for some its fun, and they get to see different ways things can be set up
I was curious
When I started my Linux journey I switched distros every weekend. But later I found Qubes OS and been using it for 8+years now...
Everyone has different needs and preferences. Finding something early on and being able to stick with it is great, but many don't find that right away, or things change with their needs or the distro.
Isn't part of being in the Linux culture to experiment with things, even if it's just the window manager, settings, or particular apps?
Actually no. We proud that we can not to reinstall OS in decades. That we have /etc and ~/.config dirs. Linux from the user standpoint is very conservative. Everything that worked 20 years ago, still works. Just some things became more trivial in setup.
Of course we have some "civil wars" here and there, like PulseAusio, X Window, etc, but those are few and not very interesting to the end-user.
So you're saying diversity is a bad thing? That seems very anti-Linux. The very fact that you can choose not to change for so long instead of being forced to accept the next version is diversity itself.
I am not saying that. I am saying that diversity for the sake of diversity is done by a tiny amount of crazy kids. Only extremely rare "alternatives" are staying alive. Most people respect stability and use soft that is decades old(not old versions, but soft that was founded decades ago).
That goes back to my point, that there's choices out there with Linux, from the OS distro on up to the applications. That's not being different just to be different, it's trying to fill niches where there are needs. And things change, even the tried and true sometimes go obsolete for newer approaches. Stagnation is a killer. But if it works for the needed purpose, then great.
I just don't get the internal arguing within Linux. Embrace even the "crazy kids", after all that's where Linux came from.