>>47546782
Fedora, because I like yum, and it's the only yum distro worth a shit.

>>47546782
centos cause every server at work has red hat on it

Been using Arch for about a year now. Haven't run into any problems. Never had a package shit out on me during an upgrade. I like it for the AUR and the fact that the only things installed are the things I use/want.

>>47546788
fedora here too but yum is depreciated

mint, works great out of the box and easy to use for old windows user

Manjaro because it hasn't broken yet. And pacman.

>>47546782
Gentoo - eselect / portage / USE-Flags
Debian - stable (server)

>>47546782
funtoo. long time gentoo user, made the switch when I got a new machine a year or so ago. arch w/ openrc on my laptop.

Yes.

>>47546823
it's not. stop spreading bullshit.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ReplaceYumWithDNF

technically dnf is yum4 anyway

Xubuntu because it just werks.

Gentoo on most things. Don't care about ricing, but having a much higher level of control of what is and is not installed on my system is nice. Could probably have the same benefits with Slackware, but I've never tried it.

Run Debian on my own servers mainly because my VPS provider doesn't support Gentoo.

Have a bunch of Ubuntu VMs for work since that's what we run on our servers.

>>47546782
>very easy to use
compared to what?
Ubuntu is way easier:
better installer, better hardware support, better defaults (tho opiniated)

>>47546782
Debian for servers and workstations that other people might use
Arch for my main rig and laptop

>>47546952
Very easy to use as in most things are already configured. It's easier for me to use than Gentoo or Arch.

>>47546908
>but having a much higher level of control of what is and is not installed on my system is nice
except USE flags are bloated by now and don't work that well. (FFmpeg vs Libav; try to install KDE w/o semantic search; ..)

>Run Debian on my own servers mainly because my VPS provider doesn't support Gentoo.
rolling release distros on servers are insane. you want ABI/API stability

>>47546952
every distro is easy to use, even the ones you need to compile shit as long as you follow a tutorial. every de works the same. linux is not hard; it's obnoxious at most when you have problem and ask online and people start to flame or suggest absurd solutions or tell you you're wrong and should do y instead of x when you don't give a half fuck about y and just need x.

>>47546993
>except USE flags are bloated by now and don't work that well. (FFmpeg vs Libav; try to install KDE w/o semantic search; ..)

Not sure what your point is w.r.t. ffmpeg and libav, I was able to set it to use ffmpeg easily enough and haven't run into issues. I don't use KDE, Gnome, etc, so I haven't run into any issues there. Every now and then I run into something that should be a USE flag and isn't, but it's easy enough to fix in an overlay.

>rolling release distros on servers are insane. you want ABI/API stability

Regular updates properly tested in a staging environment minimize risk while allowing you to not be stuck on ancient versions of software with an ever increasing risk and overhead to upgrade your OS from one stable release to the next. I know companies still running Debian Sarge because the effort and risk are too high to jump to a modern stable release. It's more common to see companies stuck on 12.04 even though it's almost 3 years old now.

Additionally, the hacks that are often put in place to deal with missing or outdated packages just make release based distros more painful (virtualenvs/pip, go's static compilation, and docker are alternative solutions to some of those issues).

>>47547004
most distros are not easy to use and fail pretty much in any UX test.
there's a reason that Unity/Gnome 3 take away your options: you can't easily shoot yourself in the foot.
it's universally considered an UX failure, if you have to use the terminal.
package managers are still shit. basically no discoverability and needing to run as root. they are only needed because there's no ABI/API stability, so distros are in reality their own OS, which try give you some sort of stable ABI/API and have to pre-package everything for you. so when some user wants the latest software, he might have to update his whole OS.

>>47546782
I use arch because I found I like pacman, and debian went full SJW

>>47547117
>Regular updates properly tested in a staging environment minimize risk while allowing you to not be stuck on ancient versions of software with an ever increasing risk and overhead to upgrade your OS from one stable release to the next. I know companies still running Debian Sarge because the effort and risk are too high to jump to a modern stable release. It's more common to see companies stuck on 12.04 even though it's almost 3 years old now.
What's so wrong with old versions that make you take risks? If you really need a feature, ask Red Hat to backport.

How many machines do you even manage? pretty sure most are still on Red Hat Satellite 5. so that's RHEL5 from 2007.

Manjaro for life. Probably.

>>47546782
I use Manjaro, because it is a rolling release that holds back from true bleeding edge to do more testing, making it less likely to break.

>>47546782
Slackware, because:
It's stable as fuck
It's sane as fuck
it stays the fuck out of my way
No dependency hell
Simple installer
KISS principle all the way
Most unix-like distro I've ever used