Title is quite self-explanatory, reason I wonder is because every now and then I think to myself “maybe distro X is good, maybe I should try it at some point”, but then I think a bit more and realise it kind of doesn’t make a difference - the only thing I feel kinda matters is rolling vs non-rolling release patterns.
My guiding principles when choosing distro are that I run arch on my desktop because it’s what I’m used to (and AUR is nice to have), and Debian on servers because some people said it’s good and I the non-rolling release gives me peace of mind that I don’t have to update very often. But I could switch both of these out and I really don’t think it would make a difference at all.
I always unable to upgrade ubuntu based distros. I always need to reinstall
The only reason my last machine didn’t get more than 10 years worth of in-place upgrades was because I decommissioned it as a desktop and turned it into a server, so I wiped it at that point.
For me its because something new broke the upgrade feature.
Its always something different and I am unsure if its a me issue. It rarely worked but sometimes it did.
As soon as you change something on your Ubuntu by a little or lot, the upgrade is not possible. I feel forced to use rolling release because of my behaviour