Linux

I use Mint. Because it's easy.

I use Kubuntu on my Surface Go because it got way too warm under Windows. It'd work fine most of the time but I just got unhealthily warm to the point it'd get too hot to touch under very minor workload. My SO's father, who's been a huge proponent of Linux for decades now, suggested I give it a try and it's been great. Some minor functionality restrictions but nothing I can't work around. The touchscreen and the stylus work - that's all I need for school

I run Garuda because it's a more convenient Arch with most relevant things preinstalled. I wanted a rolling release distro because in my experience traditional distros are stable until you have to do a version upgrade, at which point everything breaks and you're better off just nuking the root partition and reinstalling from scratch. Rolling release distros have minor breakage all the time but don't have those situations where you have to fix everything at the same time with a barely working emergency shell.

The AUR is kinda nice as well. It certainly beats having to manually configure/make obscure software myself.

For the desktop I use KDE. I like the traditional desktop approach and I like being able to customize my environment. Also, I disagree with just about every decision the Gnome team has made since GTK3 so sticking to Qt programs where possible suits me fine. I prefer Wayland over X11; it works perfectly fine for me and has shiny new features X11 will never have.

I also have to admit I'm happy with systemd as an init system. I do have hangups over the massive scope creep of the project but the init component is pleasant to work with.

Given that after a long spell of using almost exclusively Windows I came back to desktop Linux only after windows 11 was announced, I'm quite happy with how well everything works. Sure, it's not without issues but neither is Windows (or macOS for that matter).

I also have Linux running on my home server but that's just a fire-and-forget CoreNAS installation that I tell to self-update every couple months. It does what it has to with no hassle.

I have distro hopped like many others. Started out on Ubuntu more than a decade ago. It wasn't something I loved then, or now. But tried a few more along the eayway.

Ultimately, I landed on Arch. I want newest packages available, I like to tinker. And I wanted arch so that I could learn how my OS worked on a deeper level than windows would ever allow me to learn without extra dissection. I swapped from being a windows user directly to Arch.

My first few Arch installs were done by hand, but anytime I reinstall now that I have an understanding, I use the ArchInstall script.

Arch for me is the perfect cross of form, functionality, and up to date with large dash of customizability.

Yes, I am familiar with what Gentoo is, but never delved into using it. The next "leap" or discovery I am going to invest time into is Nix.

I use Devuan and TDE because the setup is so incredible boring and dusty that i do not have to get acquainted with anything new (SystemD, Wayland... whatever hipster WM is currently cool) and keep working with the tools i like.

When I was new to the Linux desktop world (late 90s to 200x) I tried lots of different distros and (X11) window managers and tools and whatnot. Changed themes a lot. And so on. And I think there's value in all that, because it expands your horizon of what's possible on the desktop, how different UI/UX paradigms work out in practice for you, and you learn how to use different environments.

On the other hand, there's also value in having a consistent, well-integrated desktop environment. It can mean less "pain points" in various circumstances, and it's also efficient when multiple programs share the same libraries or code base instead of having separate tools all around.

In the end, it comes down to what works best for you. But this might also change over time. For example I'm really considering switching to Cosmic once it's mature. I'm also considering taking a look at Niri because it seems well thought-out. But currently I feel cozy using Plasma at home and Gnome at work because Plasma is currently the least-annoying and at work I still use Gnome because it's been historically more stable than Plasma for me. I've tweaked Plasma's hotkeys so they work more like Gnome's and since I also need to use a couple of Windows-based systems at work I've also configured common Windows shortcuts like Super+L, Super+E, Super+R so that they all behave the same everywhere.

Oh, and my distro is Arch everywhere because I've used it for ages now and I like its technical simplicity, stability and modularity. It's the one distro that gets in my way the least.

I think one should learn enough to be flexible and be able to use everything, while also not being too narrow-minded and just focus on one solution too much. What works best for you now might not be the best choice for you in a couple of years.

Used it at work and wanted to learn on my own. Then installed Ubuntu as a noob, and was like "why tf is everyone still using Windows?"

I use Arch with hyprland, waybar, walker, pcman-qt, Kitty.

Reason is I hate mouse or touchpads I try to use them less. Hyprland is a tiling wm but I am not a fan of tiling at all. Most of the time I switch through workspaces with command+tab and only one window on each workspace.

Alpine Linux + LabWC – as I update my hardware, I seem to end up paring down my software – the more powerful the computer is, the less use I make of its capabilities 🤷 – I’ve worked with Macs and Windows, and settled on Linux more for its simplicity than anything – I don’t have any problem with MacOS or Windows themselves so much as the companies behind them

Alpine is a nice, clean, lightweight distro that works surprisingly well on a desktop despite the whingers complaining it’s for containers only … Pop!_OS ⇒ Debian Stable ⇒ Alpine (with Gentoo back in the dawn of history)

LabWC is the spiritual successor to Openbox, a nice simple stacking window manager that I’ve added a handful of tiling keybinds – I’ve added utility programs as I’ve wanted them rather than going for the cohesiveness of a proper desktop environment … Gnome ⇒ Xfce ⇒ LabWC (and with Openbox way back when)

I use just Fedora with GNOME I ditched windows because of its bad interface and UX, first I tried linux mint, liked it but I wanted more, so I installed Nobara with KDE (but quickly begun rising hyprland), my rice was almost done, than I updated my system and its all broke, after that I decided that I just want a stable DE and went to Fedora KDE spin, overtime I noticed more and more bugs and Windows style interface bothered me more and more, so I decided to stop my unreasonable hate on GNOME and try it, and I quickly loved it. Now my plans is maybe install Fedora Silverblue (or GNOME OS once it will have stable release) and run it forever

EDIT: a little bit more about my setup. I use mostly flatpaks bacuse of sandboxing, 5 little extensions that don't change intended GNOME workflow and glfw + sdl compiled to have no window decorations (because they useless in games imo) (they not installed in system)

For my gaming rig I use Mint Cinnamon with the Xanmod kernel and kisak-mesa PPA for bleeding edge performance but otherwise a very low-maintenance, convenient system.

For my personal laptop (ThinkPad T480s) I use Arch with KDE. For my various mini PCs used as servers, I use primarily Debian derivatives, except for my Mac Mini which runs Asahi Arch so I could optimize the use of its 8G of RAM.

I use Arch with Gnome because this is something I've installed years ago and it just keeps working with no issues.

I use mint that I haven't updated in years because one time I tried and it failed so I stopped trying. It's my old work Thinkpad that I now use exclusively to run weekly events. It's old and heavy and I needed a more lightweight OS than windows.

I use Mint, with Cinnamon. It looks like Windows, and 99% of the time works like it too. The only issue I have is the lack of good small accessibility tools, and the difficulty of using arbitrary executables. It's easy to use, and it works reliably.

The more Windows-like an OS is, the happier I am to use it. Note that Win11 is not very Windows-like in my view. It cuts out power user functions and adds so much useless bloat and tracking that I don't want to ever touch it. If I ever have to, outside of work, the first day or six will be spent with the thing offline, basically deleting out half of the OS and remodeling the half that's left.

I'm an old coot and comes from preGUI area. My first unix experience were on 80x25 amber terminal. Then X came, I used mwm/twm/fvwm and things like this, it was very tricky to configure to your taste, mainly with config file, you wanted your xeyes, xload, xbiff, xclock etc at this place, transparent, no border, etc, very complicated. Linux didn't exist.

Then Windows came... and kind of dominated the world with win3/95/98/etc. and at the time linux desktop were still not perfect + you had all kind of driver problems/missing.

As a lot of people I was used to windows GUI so I chose Xfce (also because France). Simple GUI, a button menu bottom left, an app bar, and systray icons and clock bottom right. Don't need anything else.

I tried LFS, Arch, Cinnamon Mint, I tried Ubuntu, I tried tile, but nah, the simpler the better, Xfce it is.

I am using MX Linux for years now, Debian based, always up to date, .deb packages, no systemd, no snap, no flatpak.

i started with slackware ~2003 and moved to gentoo in 2005. it was very transparent to me as a newbie. use flags and compilation from source were way simpler to me than mysterious precompiled binaries. also ndiswrapper worked with my wireless chipset on gentoo. that helped

i use gentoo now from arch becuase i wanted to use portage and be able to control dependancys and i run chadwm (fork of dwm) for added features and the rest of the things i use like st dmenu neovim all are part of the workflow ive made