OpenSUSE's Spectre Mitigation Approach Is One Of The Reasons For Its Slower Performance

[GreenReaper]

Debian has a variety of releases - oldstable, stable, testing and unstable:

https://wiki.debian.org/DebianUnstable

There are also backports for the stable releases you just want a few newer packages, not all of them. Ubuntu likely has there as well.

The other server OS I use is FreeBSD, although I might not be for that much longer.

[OMTDesign]

Nothing from your list provides that under the same umbrella. Tumbleweed also provides the best rolling experience with Plasma desktop.

IMHO:
Fedora >= Tumbleweed
Centos >= Leap
But you are right about the KDE experience offered by openSUSE, it is only rivalled by Plasma.

[xorbe]

I myself can't name a single thing OpenSuse is trying to accomplish, any reason behind why it exists. They could call quits and join efforts of other distros.

After I abandoned Mandrake, I tested several distros. At the time, openSUSE seemed to have the best KDE maintenance. And with Tumbleweed, it's got recent packages. Time has passed, and I don't know what the "competition" looks like these days. Can't believe they've deployed rbrown to interact with end-users, that's a pr disaster.

[starshipeleven]

Debian, Ubuntu etc. it's shit, Arch is a great release but it's not for everyone and they know it too.
Usually I always have great respect for everyone, but since some users here do not respect the work of others, I can only confirm that Debian and derivatives are shit, at least for my decades of experience. I'm really incredulous in reading some crap here, blame Intel that did a shitty job on their CPU, not who should put the patches.

I have my fair share of bad and meh things to say on Debian, but I'd personally call "shit" only Ubuntu, as only there I've seen breakage I didn't thought was even possible.

[starshipeleven]

Well, I've gone through this experience. And while installing Arch is not a "5 easy steps" by any means, it's not "how to draw an owl" either.

It requires a significant amount of pre-requisite knowledge, or a significant amount of reading the wiki.
It's hard for anyone that does not fully understand how a distro actually works, which isn't a skill everyone has (or really needs to have imho).

[starshipeleven]

How am I talking bullshit?

Nothing of what you said is even remotely true.

[Jonjolt]

Debian, Ubuntu etc. it's shit, Arch is a great release but it's not for everyone and they know it too.
Usually I always have great respect for everyone, but since some users here do not respect the work of others, I can only confirm that Debian and derivatives are shit, at least for my decades of experience. I'm really incredulous in reading some crap here, blame Intel that did a shitty job on their CPU, not who should put the patches.

Holy crap, I thought it was just me, every once and a while I try using Debian it has never been stable for me, Arch can be a PITA but has been a lot more reliable for me (Which the internet tells me is the exact opposite)

[bug77]

Well, I've gone through this experience. And while installing Arch is not a "5 easy steps" by any means, it's not "how to draw an owl" either.
If I knew beforehand what I know now, I would have gone with a sister distro that includes an installer. But Arch's wiki is the best bar none. You'll find everything you need in there (but yes, you need to know how to look).

[Charlie68]

Debian, Ubuntu etc. it's shit, Arch is a great release but it's not for everyone and they know it too.
Usually I always have great respect for everyone, but since some users here do not respect the work of others, I can only confirm that Debian and derivatives are shit, at least for my decades of experience. I'm really incredulous in reading some crap here, blame Intel that did a shitty job on their CPU, not who should put the patches.

...Arch can be installed in about 5 steps and there's nothing hard about it