Linux

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.

I thought Linux was about choice

http://www.islinuxaboutchoice.com/

[Edit] Sorry I've just picked up Sync and the UI has apparently confused me. I was trying to respond to this comment.

https://lemmy.world/comment/2287892

But I guess I messed up.

Android. Google doesnt invest anything in AOSP it seems, GrapheneOS is the only really well made Distro.

Androids security model is a joke as every phone is bloated with malware that has full access over everything.

Banking apps need Google, map apps need Google.

There is no split screen in AOSP since forever.

No tools on the lockscreen. I am not talking about crazy ios like tools that are basically a seperate OS, its still a lockscreen. But camera and torch?

So many restrictions. RootlessJamesDSP is a good example of crazy workarounds that still dont work in the end. No FOSS appstore with autoupdates is also a pain.

Fedora, mostly because of the decisions they make are mostly for corporate areas;

The kernel selection they make, packages and etc;

Sometimes need to deal with kernels they select that don't work well with my hardware

Ubuntu because of forced Snaps

SUSE because of Yast and the (german) company's rumored? stance on antisemitism (google banned Jewish holidays)

Fedora for it's update mechanism with the forced reboot

Arch as the necessary evil

Sorry mate. I love them all! All free software, especially GPL-based but still have high appreciation for the BSDs as well. Even Red Hat that has messed everything up recently, has a soft spot in my heart, with Fedora being the first distro I really enjoyed Linux in 2003 (very first Fedora Core). However, IBM/RedHat make a real effort to become the one and only distro that I may list here.

Arch and any arch based distro. It's overused, deb is better and the absolute chads will always be distros like NixOS or Guix System. There is no use for an unstable, beginner-unfriendly, distro where you constantly encounter dependency hell.

Of course I'm just being edgy, every Linux Distro is good for the sole fact of it not being Windows.

CentOS. We were stuck on an old version at work. The OS is already designed to use old packages for security/stability, so imagine how outdated they are on an old version. It was a nightmare getting new software running on it. That coupled with the other news surrounding CentOS and RHEL, I'm not touching those anymore w a 10 foot pole. I wish it just crumbles and Debian takes over. I have had amazing success with like 20 years on Debian and it just gets better and better.

Easily manjaro, so many headaches

Ubuntu. Snaps are a buggy mess. I know you can remove them but I like sane defaults. Snap drives me insane. Mint, PopOS, Debian are better choices for a stable distro.

edit: I also don't like Fedora and CentOS. The installers tend to be very buggy for me.

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.

Manjaro because in the few months I've used it, it happened twice that my system didn't boot anymore after I updated it. The second time I didn't reinstall but installed EndeavourOS instead. Been using that for like 2 years and never had that issue again.

Gentoo.

Ain't nobody got time for dat!

I'm noy going to say I dislike it, but I don't see the point in a source based distro like Gentoo anymore.

I learned a lot from using Gentoo when I was just getting into Linux 20 years ago, but now looking back on it, why would I want to juggle with everyones build systems and compiler flags? Especially now hardware is so homogenous.

Anything even tangential to Red Hat.

RPM's are hot garbage when it comes to packaging formats.

Having said that, I use Fedora at work and Ubuntu at home.

Ubuntu. Package organization is annoying, versions are out of date, managing multiple versions isn't consistent, and distro upgrades always have unintended consequences. Often ones that aren't easy to figure out. Their reputation for being beginner friendly should have died around a decade ago.

OpenSUSE, mostly because they differ too much from other distros, often even without any (obvious) advantages.

For example a lot of file paths (config files and such) are different, and when being used to other distros (or just following a guide from the internet) it takes longer to find it (I know there is Yast but I'm not a huge fan of that tool either)

Also, Manjaro

which linux distro do you NOT like, and why?

The one with the most elitist gatekeeping users.

Ubuntu. Pretty sure you already have an idea why. Lol.

OpenSUSE. I've always had issues trying to use it, from zypper to updates to bootloops. It's also sluggish compared to other distros (yes, same DEs usually) on my laptop. I've tried at least 3x trying to get why a lot of people love it. It's just not for me.

I've never tried Manjaro yet, but coming from Arch and EOS I don't think I ever will.

Using arch but honestly. I don't "like" any of them. Every distro I've ever used has required more setup and maintenance than I would have liked.

I really just want a system that doesn't bork itself on updates and let's me install whatever software I want. You would think that wouldn't be so impossible to find.

I've never had a good experience with an arch based distro. I understand that's kind of the goal, and it's great if you want to use your computer to set up arch, but I want to use my computer for other things.

Endeavor, Arch, Manjaro et al.

Well, Ubuntu. I've been skeptical of it from the beginning, but I did use it on and off in the 00's. Canonical has since gone out of their way to make sure I won't install their shit on my computers.

Recent developments have also somewhat soured me on Fedora.

Every distribution offers different things. I like debian sid for the simplicity and general software availability, but APT is something i still consider a bit clunky. I like arch because of its barebones philosophy - arch wiki helped me a lot learn about linux. I like gentoo - the wiki is awesome and portage is a great package manager. It was the first time I saw how the linux kernel gets compiled. It makes you appreciate all the work the devs do. I now read the title and you ask for the opposite. But someone might find these bad, so i will post it as-is