Linux

Using void linux because it has no systemd init system (it uses its own "runit" init system) ; and it is a natutal development after using Debian for a long time and wanting to understand more about gnu/linux system.

Also, it is very reliable with a lot of packages. It is standard enough so using info from arch, debian or other distro works.

But the origin was I could not understand how systemd was managing the system and it felt really contrived to go around it, so I began using void and that's the story.

A bunch of nerds on lemmy suggested it and I haven't found any problems with it that make me want to go for another. I use Fedora KDE

Eh, it worked for me the best back when I was new to Linux, and I've never tried anything that was better, just different since then.

I went through the usual Ubuntu experiment, but their baked in DE at the time was just unpleasant. Tried manjaro? I think, it's hard to recall if that was before or after that initial flurry of trying things out. But there were a half dozen that got suggested back on the Linux for noobs subreddit when win10 came along amd I was noping out.

Mint did the trick. Cinnamon as a DE did what I wanted, how I wanted it. It came with the stuff I needed to get started, and the repo had the stuff I wanted without having to add anything. It worked with all my hardware without jumping through hoops.

I've tried other stuff and like I said, nothing better, just different, so why screw around?

Tbh, that's also how I feel about pretty much everything I tried though. If I had run into one of the others that happened to "fit" the same way back then, I'd likely still be with it because there's really not a ton of difference in day to day use between any of them. The de matters more in that regard, imo.

Arch, because it has what I want for gaming. Also its simple, lots of help in forums and community driven. Im not too big on rolling, but it's really stable and works.

I have distro hopped a bit, used fedora, ubuntu, debian, and manjora. Stopped on arch as, I like my xfce set up with arch.

KISS - keep it stupid simple or simple stupid.

debain, with xfce if i need a desktop. mostly because i started on xubuntu. started learning sysadmin stuff when all i could afford was a potato with salvaged computer components shoved in it. xfce considered that excessively over powered. ended up loving the way i set up my xfce env, and probably wont change it much over the next 20yrs because theres no need. so when cononical got extra gross it was easy to just move to debian and carry on with my life.

Arch. I'm addicted to updating packages and Arch helps me stay sane.

trisquel and I love it

After tried Alpine, NixOS, Archlinux...finally Im on MX linux because this is a no brain distro and I'm tired to search how to make things to work.

Ubuntu at work since it's well supported and we can expect any IT people to be able to deploy our packages.

Pop 24.04 because I think it'd be cool to see how performant and maintainable and customizable a desktop that isn't GTK or QT based. Something sparkly without the legacy choices of the past to consider in the codebase. Plus even though I've never touched Rust, it's so hyped that I'm interested to see how it all works out. It's my gaming desktop that also has a Windows VM for occasional trying something out. Also process RAW photos with Darktable. Every now and then use Alpaca to try out free LLMs, handbrake, ffmpeg, image magick, compile something

Fedora, stable to me and it goes on my minipc. I run Jellyfin on it and occasionally SAMBA or whatever. I like to see how GNOME changes.

On a Legion Go, Bazzite with KDE. Steam and seeing how KDE Plasma progresses over years. Bazzite introduced me to distrobox and boxbuddy which I now use on the gaming pop_os machine too.

An old laptop with Linux Mint on it. I like to see how Cinnamon is. Used to favor it when I first tried Linux from Windows.

It's been a long time but I also used to really like Budgie but I feel like everything is pretty solid at this point and I no longer care to chase modern GNOME 2 or Windows XP/7 UI design

TuxedoOS because my so-called "Linux-Laptop" turned out to not run mainline Linux very smoothly. But I hate that fact that it's Ubuntu-based.

I'd use Debian, Arch or dabble with Void if I could on my laptop, my servers run Debian or Alma.

~~ArcoLinux~~ ArchLinux (BTW) because I love tinkering with computers.

Finding ways to automate tedious tasks is the fun part of the challenge. Scripts, systemd services, bash aliases are a great skill to learn. (Especially bash)

Also I'm too used to pacman and AUR to go back to APT.

Ran Ubuntu and Ubuntu server first then switched to desktop fedora and liked it so I switched all my servers to fedora. Tried TrueNas Scale in the past and disliked it except for SMB shares. Also have an unraid server but hate it.

I guess I’m pretty superficial about just liking the base fedora DE. Idk beyond that.

Arch

Found it, love it

I use Mint because I use lots of small project software that tends to only have packages for Debian/Ubuntu. Mint also works very well with an NVIDIA card. I've tried other distros but they fail to work well with nvidia.

When I get a new AMD laptop I want to try Vanilla OS as apparently it can use any package format but is also immutable which I like. I just hope they have the KDE Plasma edition out by then because I really don't enjoy Gnome

Mint CE for my desktop (might distro hop soon for multiple curiosity based reasons, all my data is on non-os drives anyway) - easiest to just get working when fast-swapping, IMO

Debian for my server - it's the flavor of Linux I'm most familiar with over the years & for my server I dont need any of the shit Ubuntu does

STEAM OS for my Steam Deck (I use it as a TV PC so desktop mode is common with it), because it's really good for that purpose

I was given a CD set for SUSE 8.2, then bought the 9.0 book set from a book store because I liked it but wanted the hard copy to reference when I was messing things up. I've tried a ton of other distros, but keep going back to Suse because I'm used to it.

I use Trisquel because it is recommended by FSF, is based on Ubuntu and I like Mate environment.

I wanted a mainstream option but not Ubuntu, and one that was preferably offered with KDE Plasma pre-packaged.

So I ended up deciding between Debian and Fedora, and what tipped me to Fedora was thinking: Well SELinux sounds neat, quite close to what I learned about Mandatory Access Control in the lectures, and besides, maybe it will be useful in my work knowing one that is close to RHEL.

Now I work in a network team that has been using Debian for 30 years, lol. Kind of ironic, but I don't regret it, now I just know both.

And fighting SELinux was kind of fun too. I modified my local policies so that systemd can run screen because I wanted to create a Minecraft service to which I could connect as admin, even if it was started by systemd.

I run a headless Ubuntu server and Mint as my daily driver. I tried Pop OS first, which was great, other than I hated the task bar and had some problems with some apps. I also tried Kubuntu which gave me problem after problem. Mint made everything easy.

Artix because it is more Arch then Arch according to Arch's own goals: "focuses on simplicity, minimalism, and code elegance". There is no way systemd is more simple, minimal and elegant than its alternatives. I don't think systemd is bad, but I do think it is a bad fit and Artix is what Arch should have been.