Which one(s)

Arch.

why?

1. The Arch-Wiki
2. I like pacman
3. The Arch-Wiki
4. I wanted a rolling-release distribution.
5. The Arch-Wiki
6. It just works. I had only one more serious problem in ~8 years of running Arch
7. Did I mention the Arch-Wiki?

Edit:

Having said that, I have an eye on immutable distros. Maybe one day I'll try one out.

Debian. Seemed like the most generic "Linux" there is. Nothing special, nothing weird. Just Linux. Gray, boring, system defaults Linux.

I settled on openSUSE Tumbleweed because it's rolling and reliable. I chose KDE Plasma long before I chose my distro.

I am now at NixOS. I like the reproducibility and immutability of the distro, but the documentation is far from great and configuring the OS you want is not that straightforward. I also don't like that even though it has a great number of packages, they tend to be slightly outdated.

I am not sure if I will stick with it, but I really like that I can create very specialised configurations that are also portable. I am currently using KDE but I am thinking of switching to Hyprland once I get more comfortable around NixOS and home manager/flakes, as nothing beats tiling managers in my opinion.

Fedora.

(Specifically Workstation - i.e. the Gnome variant, but I've used other spins and they're also great)

Pretty up to date, reliable, spearheads new developments that go on to benefit the Linux desktop as a whole, they don't make a bunch of crazy alterations to the DEs they ship.

And to think I was reluctant to try it for ages because the name sounds like it'd be some neckbeardy distro.

Fedora atomic GNOME aka silverblue

• It has very good defaults, works out of the box, I can switch anytime to another de or a ublue image without messing around with my setup
• selinux
• podman
• flatpak centric
• auto updates
• widely used

Current Cons:

• openssl is not installed by default (for gsconnect)
• gnome-tweaks is not installed by default
• uses toolbx instead of distrobox. Toolbx is better for servers, distrobox better for desktop, imo.
• flatpak firefox isn't used

Arch. Minimal, fast, rolling and it doesn't break. Plus, the AUR and the Wiki are unvaluable.

Had been on: RedHat (199something), Mandrake, Slackware, Ubuntu and Debian before.

I learned, and learned, and learned, and every step led me to simplify, simplify, simplify.

Now, I’m a Debian man. If I didn’t install it, it probably isn’t on there, just like I like it.

Debian. So many other distros are based on it anyway. I use it on damn near everything now.

Debian. It always works until it doesn’t and when it doesn’t there’s information at my level of understanding that allows me to correct it.

I settled on two.

1. Arch for my desktop, because there I like having an always up-to-date system with the latest drivers and libraries so that I can always try the latest versions of whatever it is I want to play with next. Pacman is also a pretty good package manager, and almost any piece of software that is not in the default repos can be found in the AUR. For the rest, I also like that Arch just gets out of your way and lets you configure your system how you want.

2. Debian for anything that runs unattended, like all my homelab services. It's well tested, offers feature stability, has long-enough support, and doesn't do weird things every other release like forcing snaps or netplan or cloud-init on you. Those "boring" qualities make it the perfect base to run something for a long time that doesn't scream for attention all the time.

Debian: stability

EndeavourOS.

I'm naturally a tinkerer and an avid gamer, with very recent hardware so an Arch based distro fits really nice.

It has just the right amount of pre-installed stuff. Not quite as bloaty as Manjaro or most ubuntu-based distros, but not quite as DIY as vanilla Arch. I know I can install and uninstall anything on Linux but when a distro already comes with just the right baseline for me, work smarter, not harder.

Ubuntu/Debian based distros didn't quite suit me, I love the AUR to death, I love the Arch wiki (even if a lot of it can be used just fine on other distros), I love rolling release and having the latest everything. I do use PopOS on my laptop since I use it a lot less and therefore I want to update it less often.

Only issue is when they ship dumb defaults sometimes that break my workflow but I can diagnose and undo them I guess.

Mint unironically. I've reached a point where I've got a lot of things going on in my life that I don't have the time and just need something that works and I don't need to fiddle around with much.

Servers are a different story but for Desktop, OpenSUSE.

Because:

• It's stable even on their rolling OS (Tumbleweed)
• Gaming works exceptionally well
• CUDA works with little effort
• RPM-based (personal preference)
• zypper is an excellent package manager and my experience has been better than that of yum/dnf
• Extensive native packages and 3rd party repos
• No covert advertising in the OS
• Minimal (no?) Telemetry
• Easy to bind to active directory
• it feels polished and well built
• I do not have to mess with it to make it work

Part of my transition from Windows to Linux was that basic tasks like installing software or even the OS itself shouldn't be a high effort endeavour. I should be able to point to a package file or run a package manager and be able to go about my day without running "make" and working my way through dependency hell.

I say this as a Linux user of all different flavours for well over 15 years who has a deep love for what it brings to the table. If we want it to be common place with non-IT folks, it needs to work and it needs to be simple to use.

Arch btw

Linux Mint: Debian Edition. Love mint's cinnamon DE, and the plus of being away from Canonical's shenanigans is great. It's been stable and my daily driver for months now.

EndeavourOS. I like the simplicity and minimalism of stock Arch, bloated distros bother me. I have been thinking of trying out Linux Mint again though, I used it for years and it was really good.

A mixture of NixOS and Debian, depending on the machine. NixOS is trivial to maintain and to keep predictable and tidy. When its weirdness is a problem, Debian is my answer. It doesn't get more normal than Debian.

Debian, settled down few years ago and my fallback would be Fedora.

Nice thing about Debian is, I can use it for servers, desktop and raspberry pi on am64, arm7 and aarch64. This is a real killer feature for me, because I'd rather do interesting things with my devices instead of learning n different ways to accomplish the same tasks. (e.g. using different distributions for server/desktop/pi and having to figure out 3 times the names of the same packages or where the configuration file in which version is expected.)

Fedora, it just works. I've considered going back to Arch for the AUR several times, but I just don't want to deal with it at this point

Up until last year I would have said Ubuntu. It was qualitatively the best desktop choice when I started with it in the aughts, and is still one of the few distros that has a reasonable out of the box install option with LVM. But I recently tried a Silverblue variant and NixOS, and I like what I see. Once I'm comfortable enough I will switch, I'm tired of the ensnapification and the Pro nag screens.

Ubuntu -> Pop!_OS -> EndeavorOS

Debian, because it is boring, predictable, and I know how to tweak it to suit my use case

Either Debian or Fedora + flatpak & KDE. I'm familiar with both and they just work for me. Distrohopping and messing around with my computer feels like a chore more than anything else these days.

Like everyone i started on Windows.

From there -> Mint -> Ubuntu 16 -> Fedora -> Ubuntu 18 -> elementary -> Ubuntu 18 (again) -> Ubuntu 22 -> EndeavourOS

I've god damn I love EndeavourOS. Now just hop between the supported DEs instead :)

I think GNU Guix System scratches all my itches:

• Committed to being 100% free software even at the kernel level (I know this is controversial)
• Focus on reproducible builds
• Atomic updates that can be rolled back if something breaks
• A package manager that makes it relatively easy to package software (there are importer commands that can import from language-specific package managers such as pip and cargo) and makes it possible, as a user, to apply transforms to packages (i.e. build with X commit or with Y patch)
• Per-user profiles (in addition to the root profile and the system profile) allowing user to install software without requiring root. Users can even create separate profiles as well as throwaway profiles for running scripts or one-off commands (i.e. a python or bash script can use guix shell as its interpreter listing all the packages it requires).

Previously I used Ubuntu from 2008 to 2009, Trisquel from 2009 to 2014, and Debian from 2014 to 2019.

Settled on Linux Mint Debian Edition.

I just want reliability, a beautiful desktop and great support. Plus 100% community based - Debian + Cinnamon.

No corps like canonical or red hat and no heavy maintenance routine like Arch.

Stopped hopping when I realized most distros are just debian with certain things pre-installed or pre-configured. Decided to compare base distros, and settled on Gentoo for its powerful features, transparency and customizability.

Linux Mint, I wanted Manjaro with KDE to work so much. But the issue I had with it, and no not the in general complaints about Manjaro, was how annoying it is to set up again. Rebuilding a machine or an install was just such a hassle, that I wanted to move to a Ubuntu/Debain based distro, where everything was already made for it.

If my current build of Linux Mint dies, then I'd probably move to the Mint DE and remove the Ubuntu part.

Troubleshooting is easier, finding apps is easier, and outside of advance user packages like MangoHud and XPadNeo where I needed to build from source (not fun). It's been a painless experience.

Debian. I've been using Linux since 1999, and I've tried everything under the sun. Back then, I was a Red Hat person, then an ubuntu person mostly, but Debian is where there's stability that doesn't mess with your mental health. It just works, and that has more value than being pretty or having the latest bells and whistles.

I switched to guix and haven't looked back.

Mostly because:

1. I like the idea of functional package managers
2. I like guix's dedication to making every package buildable from source (thus the no non-libre code rule)
3. I like the expressiveness of scheme vs Nix's package description language

Guix is the smoothest time I've ever built packages for a distro before (well outside arch). Which is good because there's a lot of out of date and unadded packages for potential.

Mint. Because apparently "task bar and start menu that looks like gnome 2 and/or xp" is heresy in modern ui design (although maybe kde would also work? Had some papercuts that put me off it last I tried though).

Also, it turns out that getting a full time job really kills your desire to tinker and mess around with your personal system. I just want something that works.

Mac OS.

Debian for my servers though.

My journey was:

• Mandrake/Mandriva
• Debian (v2.4)
• Ubuntu (v6.04)
• Debian (8)
• Arch Linux
• NixOS

I left Debian for Ubuntu when it simply worked better and left Ubuntu when it became too restrictive and weird. I need a working system but my freedom to experiment. Then I discovered arch and never looked back. Still kept Debian on servers.

Currently using arch on desktop machines and nixos on my servers. But I use nix for Dev environments and dotfiles even on arch.

Not sure if I'll stay with NixOS but for now that seems like the direction I'm going to. Still love Arch Linux for it's freedom though, but I'm getting older and don't have the time to fiddle with everything.