Linux

I've discovered that I don't much care which distro I'm using, it's the DE that matters most. I have Fedora GNOME, Debian GNOME, and openSUSE GNOME running on different machines. I can't really tell much difference until I enter the command line or package manager, and even then, it's the front end of the command that changes while the backend stays mostly the same. Flatpak has made the difference between distros even fewer.

A bit of tinkering. Thoughts?

Obligatory "There is not a single distro that's the absolute best for each and every one." disclaimer aside, my personal favorite is definitely secureblue for being a hardened-by-default distro that adheres to the ~~'immutable'~~ reprovisionable, anti-hysteresis paradigm while enjoying a healthy stream of improvements pushed out by an active group of contributors.

I just want to learn more about what are the differences between distros, so that they will be better or worse? Are all the distros having the same GNU/Linux kernel so that if I replace all the Arch userland files into Debian's, the system will become Debian?

It's not.

Mint Cinnamon.

It's easy, stable and gets out of my way.

I haven't seen the need to dostro hop for years.

Fedora is quite unremarkable, no issues of late. Or ever, for that matter. It's glorious.

NixOS. I've gotten so used to the declarative nature of NixOS, that I simply cannot go back to a "normal" distro anymore.

Gentoo works best for me because I'm a control freak. It lets me tune my system in any way I want, and I don't mind leaving my computer on while I'm asleep so that it can compile its way through libreoffice, webkit, and a couple of browsers. Plus, based on complaints I hear from people using other distros, Portage beats other package managers in every way except speed.

This doesn't mean that it's best for everyone, mind you, just that it's best for me.

Gentoo, because if it exists - compile it.

Mac OS is my favorite Linux distro.

Since I'm old and need to deal with administrating a bunch of machines for work, I settled on the most dull and unsurprising distros of all: debian. Sure, when I was younger and eager to learn and with much time on my hands, I used gentoo (basically what is now arch) and all the others too.

Since I was tired of distro hopping I just use MX Linux.

I've been using (X)Ubuntu for ages. I just wanted something that "just works". Tired of too much tinkering and there's plenty of (non commercial) support. Mixing it with i3 as my window manager.

Roast me ;)

Garuda - all the benefits of arch with an easy installer. And it's prettier (in my opinion) than EndeavorOS. Gaming is pretty great.

My way of thinking and working is incompatible with most premade automatism, it utterly confuses me when a system is doing something on its own without me configuring it that way.

That's why I have issues with many of the "easy" distributions like Ubuntu. Those want to be to helpful for my taste. Don't take me wrong, I am not against automatism or helper tools/functions, not at all. I just want to have full knowledge and full control of them.

I used Gentoo for years and it was heaven for me, the possibility to turn every knob exactly like I wanted them to be was so great, but in the end was the time spend compiling everything not worth it.

That's why I changed to Arch Linux. The bare bone nature of the base install and the high flexibility of pacman and the AUR are ideal for me. I love that Arch by default is not easy, that it doesn't try to anticipate what I want to do. If something happens automatically it is because I configured the system to behave that way.

Linux is so great, because there is a distribution for nearly everyone out there (unless you are blind, then things are not that great apparently, but it seems to get better).

I use Kubuntu. It is defintly not the best Distro. I am just used to it and too lazy to get used to another distro. My days as a distro jumper lie 15 years back...

Tbh though, I might switch to Debian stable whenever Trixie comes out.

Arch.

Do I need to justify myself any further?

Debian just works.

having tried many distros over the years, Arch (and most derivatives) is best for me
pacman is the best i've used, packages are very up to date, and it's pretty easy to troubleshoot with the enormous amount of info on the wiki and elsewhere

Endeavour OS is the best because you get all the benefits of Arch combined with a familiar and friendly installer, a good out of the box setup with the desktop of your choice. Not to mention the outstanding community that's built up around it.

MX Linux (Debian based), using it for almost 10 years now (before, it was Ubuntu). Based on Debian, very stable, always up to date for every kernel/apps, use native .deb no snap no flatpak no systemd. Also it is using Xfce by default, the best DE.

Because I don't have a fickle heart, and My distro is the best, right now, for me. There's nothing more to it. I do like Mint - but a few apps are out of date, and that's annoying. But it's stable, looks great, and works like a charm.

My choice of distro is just a compromise and close enough to serving my needs. All distros have pros and cons, and I use different distros for different use cases.

Mine is the best for me because I like it the best. It does what I need with a minimum of configuration or customization. My needs and preferences are probably different from yours though, so Linux Mint Debian Edition with Cinnamon desktop environment might not be the best for you.

ZorinOS is the best for me, because it works out of the box, looks a lot like Windows which i'm used to, is relatively configurable and is free (the paid version is just cosmetics and prebundled additional software). I consider looking into Arch though, thanks to your post and the comments there ;)