Linux

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.

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 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)

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 Linux because it is free and good enough to do most stuff I want to do on a computer.

I use windows at work because I get paid - so from my perspective it is cheaper than free. It makes it frustrating to do the stuff I'm supposed to do but my employers are fucking idiots so it doesn't really matter.

Debian because it's like Ubuntu (one of the most popular distros, with tons of software targeting it) minus the Canonical stuff I don't need. And newer Debians even have Wi-Fi out of the box

xfce or KDE because GNOME is just too far-out for me. They wanted to get rid of tray icons and stuff. They keep moving things around, seemingly for the sake of moving things around, or maybe to look more like phones. I don't need my desktop to be a phone.

apt isn't the greatest package manager but, there's a lot to be said for popularity, and no matter how many times someone said "Don't upgrade Arch the wrong way" I kept breaking my Arch install. Debian works because apt doesn't let me accidentally break it. (I think I was doing the pacman equivalent of apt update and then apt install. I don't know why the fuck that breaks a PM. The point of a PM is to keep yourself from breaking stuff. If I wanted broken shit I wouldn't use the PM. On two occasions Arch also soft-bricked itself because I updated pacman into a state where it could no longer run. This seems like one of the simplest things a good PM should prevent. Whereas with apt, I'm not sure it's been updated ever. It ain't perfect but it's predictable.)

I use Arch with KDE Plasma. It just works.

I distro hopped about every 4 months from ~12-22, never really feeling like I'd found the right platform. Sometimes I would dual boot (or just run) Windows, and for a while I had Windows XP in a state I could tolerate.

For several years after 22, I ran Windows at home, and kept Linux for work. I basically just wanted to game, and Windows was good enough for that. Finally, something came up that I needed a home server for, and I chose Arch, based largely on my experiences from several years ago. Arch had been more stable for me, and when it did break, it always felt like the tools to fix it existed. Ubuntu and derivatives broke for me mostly in "Oops, system is dead. Maybe reinstall?" ways, which I didn't want on my server. Other distros gave me an assortment of problems, from updates taking too long, to lacking support for a WM I enjoyed, to driver issues.

Once I was regularly SSHing from Windows to Arch, I missed the things I could do on Linux (more than just games), and steam had made Linux support from a lot of games better, so I reinstalled my gaming PC as Arch too.

I added a lot of things to my server, and had more problems with some third party tools every time e.g. elasticsearch, mongodb, or postgres updated, so I added a kubernetes cluster with an immutable OS. I tried 3 before settling on Talos, and now when a workload on the server breaks, I move it to kubernetes. That pace has worked out for me, but now the server does no heavy lifting, so I'm experimenting with local LLM on it.

I'm a fairly new user to Linux and I first got a laptop with Pop OS since I read that it was a beginner friendly distro and great for gaming. Although I didn't use it for gaming it was great to get to learn how to use Linux and use it for everyday purposes.

Later with lots of trial and error got Fedora Linux working on an old laptop with bad battery life that was lying around. I wanted to try my hand at a bit more of an advanced distro. So far I'm loving both distributions and learning more each day about how things work.

Because it lets me decide how my computers are supposed to work, instead of some cocaine-fueled asshole manager in Redmond or Cupertino.

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

I use Windows because

My pc does not tell a story. It's a thing I use for work and play. I can't be bothered, it doesn't interest me, what niri, alacritty cosmic de is. Why should I care? Why should I invest that time? My pc works already. My framerates are high, it's stable and all the stuff I need for work, works. Out of the box.

Every single time I tried linux for the desktop the system failed within weeks. Dependency error after an automatic upgrade. Grub killing itself. Again. X refuses to start. So many config files littered all over the place just waiting for you to fuck something up. Gpu driver bullshittery. Printer hell. Other peripheral shit. (Flightsim gear)

And honestly, the last time i seriously tried was more then 5 years ago. In IT terms that's a lifetime. So surely it will be much better now.

But after the umpteenth fail to start X, I just thought: wtf am I doing? I could also next next finish my ass through a Windows installation, insert a pihole in my network to block the most obnoxious stuff and just do my thing.

Which is what I did.

Now, I do use linux. A lot. Just not for my desktop.

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

Well, I use Void Linux, Fedora, and NetBSD. All for different purposes. I just love the freedom to modify my system 'till my heart's content. I'm generally a tiling WM (sdorfehs) on laptops and openbox/lxde on desktop.

I appreciate minimal clean code.

I primarily want something simple I can bend to my will, and secondly I want a good out of the box experience. For me that's been Arch + KDE. The wiki and AUR are great!

I would say every step of the way I just wanted more and more ownership of my system. I make it, I break it. One specific experience which drove me to that camp was the time I had to jailbreak my iPhone and dig through files to disable some deprecated parental control setting... give me ownership over my stuff!

Arch because it just works once you set it up (yeah, paradoxically), and both AUR and the official repos are fresh yet reliable

I use Mint, with little customization.

Mint basically gets out of my way, I care about the ability to get my work done.

I also prefer the windows paradigm rather than the Mac paradigm. IMHO Mint does it better than windows now.

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 used to run SUSE on a laptop i only used once every three years or so. Because of the "full open source" principle i couldn't run a lot of online Videos because the codecs were free but proprietary. When i decided to get a new computer as my tower was getting 15, i wanted to switch to a Linux distro as my daily system. Bought a laptop without windows preinstalled and decided to roll with Manjaro as it has KDE and was recommended as suitable for gaming.

Works fine for the most part. The last wave of updates caused some fuss with the desktop, but i can just do everything important from the terminal, while waiting for the next release.

Windows doesn't have a real choice of desktop environments. So I moved to Linux 15 years ago. I'm not in IT and always use a mouse. Importantly for me, I've never needed the CLI, despite people telling me that's impossible. Plasma lets me tweak it to my needs. I use Kubuntu, yet don't care about what's below the desktop environment. Happy to change distros.