>>51052061I have been using Arch for a good one year and I don't like it much. Takes a lot to configure, and it's fairly easy to break it. After a hardware change (Intel to AMD) I am constantly getting kernel panics (reinstalled a bunch of times with same result because too lazy to actually fix drivers / kernel modules). Also, you have got to pay close attention on what packages are getting updated each time because the latest version of X may not be compatible with the proprietary GPU drivers you built+installed from AUR or with your DE, which has yet to come out with a new version to fix it, so you have to postpone updating specific packages until everything is compatible again. Bleeding edge my ass - it's the user that's bleeding after hitting their head on the wall because this distro is that much of a pain.
I have barely started with debian, but I would easily classify it as "comfortable". Much easier to set up than Arch and you can personalize it just as much, has a decent number of packages available, has a sort of rr version (if you're into that).
Tried Fedora once (with Gnome), hated Gnome's guts and deleted. Also that "yum is deprecated, using dnf instead" crap is annoying. If someone's used to typing "yum", let them at it, use your alias and stop bothering the user about how dnf deprecated it.
As for Mint, I would say it's bloated, despite common opinions (but then again it depends on the DE you got it with - Cinnamon in my case). I would say it's just another flavor of Ubuntu - I don't see it adding anything special to it.
I installed openSuse (both Tumbleweed and the non-rr flavor) and kept getting Kernel panic every time I booted from fresh install and I couldn't be bothered to find out why so I gave up on it.
Ubuntu is easily awesome. Pick any flavor (even unity-botnet) and it's going to be easy to install, configure and customize (unless it's unity-botnet).
This is all subjective though.
