Linux

The only one that really pissed me off was a distro called biglinux. It's arch based and very popular in Brazil. It's actually very stable. Everything works great. It's got some nice features.

Butttt, it uses latte dock or panel (kde). They have built in presets for how to arrange the panels and what not. It's nice, however, I was trying to move some panels around from the base options and broke kde. I wasn't doing anything more than changing GUI settings and the whole desktop broke. I seriously don't understand.

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.

Debian, as its so MANUAL. Upgrading by manually updating x times and then literally changing the repos manually in the sources list? Wtf? Without any documentation or automation??

QubesOS, as it probably doesnt run on any real hardware. Didnt get beyond a blackscreen, and also AMD consumer GPUs dont support accelerated VMs making it useless.

Ubuntu because its annoying, but unsnap fixes a lot and its actually okay, still outdated Kernel als a bit weird.

KDE Neon because I cant tolerate its not a workstation distro but want it to be one

Linux Mint. Its old, and always had weird crashes for me. Its kinda nice and easy, kinda weird and complicated to do certain things. Some packages dont run as its not Ubuntu. Would always choose any KDE Distro that is newer.

Ubuntu: it's not bad, I just don't like canonical

Manjaro: it starts as arch but more user friendly (by being preconfigured), until it inevitably breaks (being arch) and you end up with a regular arch that you don't know how is configured

Elementary os: it's too elementary os

All those con distros that are just a bunch of reskinned free stuff ask you money for that. Like zorin os

I was using Manjaro until the day my install started giving me problems.with dependencies and duplicated packages (?), so I went with Fedora and it's been smooth so far.