I use Arch because it's so customizable and there's so much more freedom. Once I installed Arch I realized I'd never go back to Ubuntu. I'm so used to using the command line all the time now it feels weird and annoying when I have to use something with a GUI desktop environment (I use i3.) People always tell me when they see my system in public (it's a ThinkPad) it looks clunky, but even the inability to set custom time/date settings in KDE was mildly annoying to me.

I sincerely think CLIs and TUIs are no harder than "user-friendly" GUIs but they're just too far from the average modern person's experience for this to be acknowledged. Using nmtui to connect to WiFi is hardly more difficult than what Windows or macOS do.

I also really love pacman, the AUR, and the Arch Wiki.

Running Endeavor OS. Painless installation, everything works outta the box, good community, no release/lts bullshit. If it breaks, just rollback.

Rock stability. Everything works. I run debian oldstable, even bookworm is too much for me at the moment. Yes, seriously. I tried to connect to my work office using azure web client and the keyboard layout was wrong. When I went back to debian bullseye, it worked as expected. By the way, this bug also happens with arch and fedora.

I have installed arch as well because sometimes I just want to play with things. I'm very interested in immutable systems, but NixOs is too difficult for me and I'm afraid I will spend too much time on it.

It has the most accessible package manager of em all. And ofc I'm talking about Arch Linux (bah teh wei.)

OpenSUSE Tumbleweed. I like it for being a rolling release with quality control. On the one hand I don't like its restrictive defaults but on the other hand I know enough to work with them and that's given me a leaner system.

Debian Bookworm. On my laptop and all my servers.

I'm a seasoned professional Linux sysadmin, so getting a distro installed has never been a problem for me (thanks to my first proper distro being Gentoo).

In the end, it's the stability and "knowing what to expect", that always makes me come back to Debian.

I use Mint. As a beginner the Windows-like feel is convenient for me but once I get the hang of it I could see myself trying something else

It's easier to install when using DualBoot.

EndeavourOS is just what I needed when I started to DualBoot with windows, besides being just easier to install, some games I play still require Windows, like most dx12 games since they're currently broken due to some driver error in the latest Nvidia drivers.

I love Arch and can't see myself using anything but it, but I don't have the patience to do a manual install every other week or so because I got bored or am to lazy to actually fix my system, especially while dualbooting.

Easy installation, just works™, and it's basically a Debian Sid so it's relatively up to date. Siduction!

• Nobara for my gaming rig, same as OP + lots of out of the box gaming fixes.

• Tumbleweed for the laptop, rolling release while (in my experience) being a bit less likely to break than arch.

• Ubuntu/Debian/MicroOS/Alma for servers depending on whether I want stability + some fresher software, mountain-like stability, automatically updating container hosts or if I need redhat compatibility.

• Mint if its someone elses old computer they want to "just work", since I dislike being tech support more than necessary.

pacman/yay

Also, Arch wiki.

All else is aesthetics.

Kubuntu 22.04. All my games run like butter without much tinkering. I learned most of my Linux stuff on Debian or Ubuntu in the early days and most of what I need comes in .deb form.

Arch: I like the knowledge and understanding that comes with regular usage. I've learned a lot about my system that I probably wouldn't have otherwise. Also the PKGBUILD system / AUR.

Pacman sounds cool, wakka wakka.

i use arch, it's amazing, everything i wanna do works other then games since i have some old cheap nvidia gpu which is hardware fault itself, i wanna do developer tasks just works, wanna do tweaks just works and it's fun to use. i tried using other Distros i just can't use debian based or arch based just bare bone arch with gnome or xfce depending on my mood. if i switch fedora is always my 2nd choice but not sure after some news released on red hat I didn't stick to fedora because of lack of package or something like that just package management things kept me in arch.

Gentoo. Great rolling release that is stable and had timely updates, but has the flexibility to configure my system down to the tiniest details, with a great and knowledgable community. I love source-based distros and Gentoo is definitely the best.

EndevourOS. Easy to install and customizable/up to date as Arch can get.

I like that the NixOS packaging system feels like it's build for Free Software, making source code and Git repositories a first class citizen. You can simply drop a flake.nix into your repository and turn it into a Nix package within a couple of minutes, that's quite a bit different than the utter headache it is to package something for Debian. Nix packages being free of naming conflicts also makes it very easy to mix and match whatever versions you need, something that's basically impossible on most other distros unless you resort to containers or virtual machines. NixOS having the largest package collection of any distro is a plus too.

Debian as a server base OS is well-tested and (for me) ultra reliably stable.

For me it is Fedora as well. Before that I was using EndeavourOS but wanted to use something a bit more stable. Haven't distrohoped since!

I might as well ask here:

Im running arch on my Desktop. Mostly just to Experiment a bit, nothing to serious, Laptop is ubuntu, and both are dualboot with Windows for Gaming (nvdia gpu in both).

The Main reason to use arch was to play around with Windows Managers like hyprland. However I get the feeling that some stuff is simply missing and or configured wrong on the System.

Is it a better idea to start with something like endeavor with sway and start ricing from there?

Mint is up to date but less buggy than Ubuntu, and it has served me well for years without problems. The UI is very conventional so I don't spend time thinking about where stuff is. It supports multiple packaging systems now, so it's easy to find and install software. You don't have to go to anywhere as dodgy as the Arch User Repository to find what you need. Mint is not too conservative, not too cutting edge either, and not restrictive due to ideology. It's boring and it works and I can just get on with stuff.

I use Ubuntu LTS. It's stable, things just work, and it's got 10 years of free support. That's a very long time to not worry about my machines.

• The package manager.
• New releases make it to the repositories quickly.
• The software is as vanilla as possible; no changes made by the distribution except to get it working.
• The wiki.
• +/- No nagging graphical updater.
• +/- Users can share build scripts for building software from source very easily
• +/- No particular stance on free software licenses.

i've been distro-hopping a lot and always come back to linux mint. It's that one distro i can't fuck up when fiddling with things. it just works