i want you to convince me why i should use your preferred distribution over minimal ubuntu + dwm?
i've used the following in the past:
funtoo (very briefly)
arch - quality assurance of the packages was no bueno back when i used it. from time to time pacman -Syu resulted in some breakage and determining the source of the problem was rather annoying. the whole kiss philosophy is cool and all, but it aint exactly simple when you have shit breaking on you. even more damning is when you casually bring this topic up and the usual fanbois come up and tell you "i've been using arch for x years and i never have problems!". who knows, maybe stuff has changed, but back when i used to follow the dev blog, i remember reading something alluding to the fact that devs desperately needed volunteers to maintain packages the most. old & random, but relevant joke: how do you know someone uses arch? they'll tell you.
debian - a rock, but i needed updated packages and backports/testing was an inelegant solution to me.
funtoo - i wanted to increase my familiarity with linux, but found that attempting to use it as my main when im an idiot wasn't such a great idea. and later on i realized if i really wanted to learn via diving headfirst, why not just use linux from scratch?
so now i'm at ubuntu. it's pretty damn fast if you use minimal + dwm. package manager is probably the best there is (okay i've heard portage is better). software is recent and rarely breaks. wait time is 6 months if you want the the newest stuff. quality assurance is very high — seeing how there are so many contributors — and the community is relatively friendly and non-elitist.
i admit im not the brightest nor most knowledgeable guy and don't have time to keep up with the latest and greatest stuff, so i ask you: what am i missing out on?