My Linux from Scratch install. It was built by a moron.

Ubuntu.It' went from a great beginner distro to a dumpster fire filled with snaps and telemetry.

Manjaro, for its incompetence.

I don't hate Gentoo, but will never use it. I hate compiling.

Ubuntu - It was my first distro and I loved it for many years after 6.06. However, it slowly shifted from a very community focused distro ("Linux for human beings" was the original slogan) to a very corporate distro with lots of in-house bullshit, CLAs, and partially-closed projects that seems to focus on profit and business over actual human beings. I correlate this move to around the time when it became purple rather than brown. Snap sucks, Mir sucks, Unity sucks, integrating Amazon and music store paid bullshit sucks. Just no. Move to Debian.

Manjaro - It's Arch, but with incompetence!

Red Hat - Do you enjoy paying licensing fees for a Linux distro that very likely violates the open source licenses it uses? RHEL is for you! Just remember not to share the code! Sharing is most certainly NOT caring!

I spent the last 10 mins reading all the comments and I think we managed to shit on all the distros available.
That's the Linux community I love, good job people <3

Ubuntu, dont understand me wrong, the distro is nice but, canonical... My point because i dont like Ubuntu.

Ubuntu because they put ads in the terminal

Wish Linux Devs help build and polish OS for Pinephone. I really want Linux to go mainstream. Tired of android and Apple.

Manjaro, because because the team behind it fuck's up a bit to often for my tastes. And Ubuntu, because they force snap onto their users.

I absolutely hated myself after installing Arch on one of my machines.

Then I discovered EndeavourOS... I still hate myself but at least my laptop works now.

This is gonna be an unpopular opinion, but Linux mint. It's great if you're just getting into Linux, it's absolutely terrible when you know what you're doing in Linux. The old package base and kernel just kills me sometimes. I get they want a stable base and use the lts versions of Ubuntu, but my goodness it's always so far behind it's not even worth using if you're on AMD. Thankfully they've realized this after so many years and are releasing an EDGE iso with updated packages and kernel and LMDE is getting a version upgrade.

Red Star OS, a little too much spyware.

Garuda. It feels like being inside a gaming rig full of blinking RGB lights. Way over the top with the "gamer aesthetic".

Manjaro because it is a bait and switch trap. Seems really polished and user friendly. You will find out eventually it is a system destroying time-bomb and a poorly managed project.

Ubuntu because snaps.

The rest are all pros and cons that are different strokes for different folks.

I can find faults in any of them, but mostly hate working with Redhat/CentOS/Fedora. Strongly prefer Debian over Ubuntu, and I strongly prefer Gentoo over Arch. SUSE is an unknown, not sure about that one.

I have a fondness for BSD, if that matters.

Out of all the distros that I've tried, probably Manjaro. The distro itself is ok, I don't like how kind of bloated the default installation is, but it's not too bad.

However what really pisses me off,among their numerous other controversies, was when they replaced perfectly functional open source apps with proprietary ones...twice. Though the former has since been reversed.

Manjaro feels like a bit of a mess to me and always ends up with problems.

Ubuntu releases too many buggy updates and dumps their idiosyncratic tastes in software on everyone whether people like it or not.

No longer using Ubuntu at all because they force snaps down your throat. While I do like snaps on the server environment, (I think a lot of the haters out there don't see how nice they are on servers), I prefer to use Debian and then to just install snapd on my terms.

Ubuntu desktop version, it's slow and buggy and the devs push ads and snaps and other crap.

Ubuntu, because of their shenanigans with ads in the OS, forcing snap and just generally demonstrating disdain for their userbase.

Manjaro for their office suite debacle, and general instability.

RHEL for their recent attempts to subvert GPL.

Debian because packages are never, ever, ever up to date.

Gentoo because any sane person would get sick of compiling.

Arch, I want to get some work done not save 3 extra CPU cycles on boot.

Ubuntu brings a ton of awkward and shit memories from the course we had on it in secondary school.

Admittedly, Linux Mint is the only distro I have used in a personal capacity.

This thread has basically devolved into "Ubuntu hate circlejerk party", as expected. I guess I just hate the distro I've spent the majority of my time on Linux using getting constantly dunked on and am a bit sad watching its inevitable death by snap. (Insert Thanos meme here)

Arch

(I use Arch btw)

I am growing to dislike Ubuntu.

Simply because its so old, that anytime I try to find a solution to a problem, I'm wading through 15 years of shit, 99% of which isnt relevant anymore due to age/depreciation.

For me, it's Ubuntu as well. Canonical continuously integrates stuff to make the whole distribution more complex and hard to maintain. Without going into much detail, Ubuntu always tries to do things where there is a good standardized way different. Why the heck do we need yet another containerized GUI application environment (I'm looking at you, Snap!); Why do you develop lxd, when there is systemd-nspawn, docker and podman?!

I don't particularly like Arch.

I don't actually have a problem with it in general or its users. Wiki is helpful for almost everyone, regardless of distro (except maybe Nix and some immutables, where some things can be a bit different).

It's actually a tremendously important distro, and it, Debian, and Gentoo are the distros I know that if they disappear, Linux is either dead or very close to it.

Still, I find Arch to be... I don't know. I think this is actually about to be a very unpopular opinion, but I don't like Pacman at all, and that's probably the source of my issues with it. Its syntax annoys me and I use the terminal for package management so I'd have to be using it all the time.

I think maybe I'm just too used to APT. The same way Arch users find Pacman intuitive, that's how I feel about APT. I can use DNF and Zypper fine, but I'll still prefer APT to them as well. It just feels like "home", if that makes sense. (Nala and aptitude are both nice frontends to it as well.)

I also don't like having to rely on AUR for third party packages. That actually goes for every distro. Do not like third party packages or repos. Sometimes it's necessary, but I keep it to absolute minimum and find Debian has most of what I need. If not, Flatpak. If not Flatpak, source.

Another reason is that I think I prefer regular releases to rolling. I can go rolling if I need to, but I like just having something that doesn't surprise me with a shit ton of updates every day. Well, not surprise me as it's expected, but too many can be quite overwhelming sometimes.

Just personal preference, I guess. Nothing at all wrong with rolling, it's fantastic for a lot of purposes, just not mine.

For me it's Ubuntu. Whenever I tried it it was buggy and crashing. It kinda feels like Windows of GNU+Linux.

About Manjaro, I like it. I kinda feel sad seeing Manjaro get so much hate. The only thing I disliked was the accidental DDoS of AUR. But so far it's been working relatively well for me. I use Manjaro with Plasma.

And my favorite is Linux Mint. It just works, and it does so reliably. Also the Linux Mint community is really nice.

As such, I donated to Manjaro, Arch, and Linux Mint. Not much, but at least something.

Of all the main stream distros, I never liked Arch. I've been a big fan of and have used Debian and Fedora for years for different uses, I love all the work openSuse does for their GUI configuration, and I respect Slackware and Gentoo for what they are, though I've never use them myself.

Arch always gave me the impression that its fiddly, fragile, and highly opinionated. I think the AUR is a bandaid; its explicitly not supported, yet everyone says its the best reason to use Arch. If I want packages built from source, it just seems that Gentoo does it native to the whole OS and package manager. Nix does too. If I wanted closed-source binaries, flatpak seems like the way the ecosystem is moving and is pretty seemless for my uses. Keeping them with static libraries independent of the OS makes sense to me for something like Spotify, especially since disk space concerns are irrelevant to me.

Opinions on and around Arch are everywhere, both good and bad. I just have never found a situation where I see any benefit to using Arch over Debian for its stability, Alpine for its size, Gentoo for its source building support, or Nix for its declarative approach. So I have grown to loathe its atmosphere.

Ubuntu has been on a downward spiral for the last decade or more, at this point they have spend more years being bad, than being good. Started when they were trying to push their own Wayland alternative, their own Gnome alternative, and now they try to force their proprietary appstore shop on everybody.

Ubuntu was really good when they were just Debian with some much needed updates and polish, but those days are long gone.

And it's not like I wouldn't love to get rid of .deb, it's a terrible packaging format that had it's best days 25 years ago when it was up against raw tarballs and when packages where shipped on CD-ROM. It's in dire need of a fundamental upgrade, but Snap really is not the way forward and the way they underhandedly force it on users is just disgusting. Either build a packaging format of the future and just use it for everything, or don't.

Debian. APT sucks, the installer looks like straight out of 1999 and the packages are just wayyy too old. Also apt-autoremove deleted half of my system the 1st time I tried debian...