Arch because the packages are recent. Arch has no shiny innovation and even the performance is not that fast, but I always find a way to make everything working. It is the only distro like that for me.

Gentoo because it's what I know, and I know enough to make it do what I want.

been rockin kde neon for the last little while, but also really like mint

Ubuntu because it requires the least amount of hack fixes to get working.

And snap has vastly simplified software installation.

Manjaro, because it's rolling release and it's built on Arch, only the necessary stuff is installed (including a desktop environment), you can set it up with just a few clicks, and it works out of the box, and even proprietary GPU drivers are easily installable with mhwd. Stable and reliable.

In case anything breaks, there's quick help on their forum, which (when it happened to me once) outperformed customer support of proprietary software.

It's been my daily driver for almost 8 years without any major issue.

So in short, robustness, rolling release, simplicity, community.

Edit: I have to add, my use case is for a desktop PC for software design/development + a little gaming.

zorin os. most out of box functionaility of any distro I know. its a lazy os and im lazy. just want to install and go.

Fedora Kinoite because it doesnt suck and doesnt break. Actually switched to ublue kinoite main, very close to upstream with minimal changes that always stay the same (its always the same difference, not weirdly diverging more and more from upstream).

But I dont know if it is the best model, as Fedoras BTRFS snapshots + ostree without the image based thing would sound better ? But this is not existing.

Btw Nix, Flatpak, Distrobox/Toolbox, Distrobox/Toolbox with root, Podman, Docker, layering, removal, are all things that work on Fedora Atomic. Maybe even snap if someone is brave enough to try

It may be a little behind on updates at this point, but HML is still the best.

I don't really have a "better distro" preference -- all distros can be tweaked and optimized equally, with no benefits from one another. And yes, even Ub(l)untu.

Arch is great, but it needs longer explanations considering the user needs to do a lot more. Sometimes you find them, but other times you find a snarky superuser with zero people skills.

It's a shame they aren't government standard, so I could take a local course to become a snarky superuser too.

Most of it involves everyday Linux usages, but some of it is specific to Arch and it breaks so hard. It's not a great thing when you're stupid busy and don't have the headroom to get to the bottom of it. Sometimes all you get is vague theories on how a fix might occur. After that you're playing shell games trying to debug your problems.

Definitely recommend for pro-Linux people that have a breakable laptop that can go on the backburner.

Artix. I went Void -> Arch -> Artix. I can't help but feel that Artix is what Arch should be. Perfect blend between the Arch and Void experience.

I've moved to Ubuntu after getting burned pretty badly with CentOS's getting mistreated and eventually killed. Ubuntu feels stable enough, both in terms of their updates/quality and in terms of their corporate proceedings (such that I won't get absolutely blasted by mandatory repos being closed down, for example).

I prefer Arch (btw) due to the fun of installing it and If it breaks then you that process again with onother de or a different setup

void linux. it uses runit and it's a rolling-release. i like runit because i don't like the systemctl command for some reason. doing ln -s /etc/sv/serv_name /var/service and sv up serv_name is way nicer imo.

I was Arch for a long time but now I'm on Fedora. Most of my servers are Ubuntu server, but I'm switching some stuff to fedora server. I've always disliked Ubuntu for some reason.

Arch, because I can never be happy except when I'm bickering with a machine.

Seriously, though, I like the control and the learning factor. I enjoy knowing what my computer is doing and why, AUR is great, and the documentation is generally top-notch. Once you get past the point in the learning curve where everything is on fire and you don't know why (don't forget the 'linux' package when you pacstrap, kids!), it's a delight to use

I started at Sarge, went to Ubuntu Warthog until Eft, and went Suse and Fedora but then changed to Xubuntu Ibex. I stayed until Vervet and since then have found a very comfy home in Arch.

Arch, because of the AUR and because I can't get fully used to NixOS. Also, I know my way around Arch better tban any other distro. I tried my luck on Debian and it didn't go that well, but I'm willing to try again soon. (If only I could get Hyprland on Debian....)

Advantages: has all the software I need, new versions as well.

Disadvantages: lacks a stable branch (I recently found myself with limited/no internet access for about 2 months; if Arch had a stable release, I wouldn't have had to rebuild my NixOS system over 100 times while I was trying to get a decent DWM setup.

Fedora Silverblue! 😊

Immutable Linux is the future (and any container-based filesystem )