Ubuntu always let people do what they want to do, it pushes its users to know what they are doing, what they want and helps them learn what they ignore.

Ubuntu is simple, works out-of-the-box after installation and has a incredibly huge community behind.

Ubuntu is lightweight and open, in the way, that the user has access to free AND efficient applications (most of the time, without ads) and, even if learning its folder structure is challenging, once done, you are really able to call yourself "someone who knows what is in your computer".

Windows, in comparison, is heavy, tends to make decision for you and always enable tracking application by default. grr

It has a simple user interface, of course, but on the stability point of view, it is hard to compete with something simpler (even with less features).

Personal preference : I prefer something simple that works 99% of the time, than a full-featured auto-magical system that works 50% of the time (and ask if the good version of the driver is really installed...)

Coming from a Debian-based Linux background, using the Ubuntu base image for my Docker containers was a natural choice. However, the overhead, even on the impressively-slimmed Hub images, was hard to justify. Seeking to create images that were "just right" in size, without unused packages or dependencies, I made the switch to Alpine.

Alpine's modified BusyBox has a surprising amount of functionality, and the package repository contains plenty of muslc-safe versions of commonly-used packages. It's been a valuable exercise in doing more with less, and, as Alpine is keen to point out, an image with fewer packages makes for a more sustainable environment with a smaller attack surface.

My only regret is that Alpine's documentation leaves a lot to be desired.

I have used libvirt in every Linux hypervisor deployment I do. I frequently deploy RHEL or CentOS hypervisor servers with libvirt as the VMM of choice. It's installable via the guided setup for EL-based Linux distros, it uses minimal resources and overhead, integrates seamlessly with KVM and Qemu, and provides powerful CLI for advanced users and experts looking for automated deployments, or via VirtManager in your favorite Linux desktop environment. Best used with Linux VMs, it allows KVM and QEMU direct hardware virtualization access.

Using Arch Linux for our systems and servers means getting the latest technology and fixes early, as well as early warnings for potential future breakage in other (slower) distributions. It's been easy to maintain, easy to automate, and most importantly: easy to debug.

While our software target is every recent Linux distribution, using Arch internally ensured that everyone understands the full system without any knowledge gaps.

Ubuntu is much more faster over Windows and helps to get software and other utilities easier and within a short span of time compared to Windows.

Ubuntu helps to get robustness and resiliency over Windows. Ubuntu runs faster than Windows on every computer that I have ever tested. LibreOffice (Ubuntu's default office suite) runs much faster than Microsoft Office on every computer that I have ever tested.

Global familiarity, free, widely used, and as a debian distro feels more comfortable when rapidly switching between local macOS and remote command lines.

CentOS does boast quite a few security/stability improvements, however as a RHEL-based distro, differs quite significantly in the command line and suffers from slightly less frequent package updates. (Could be a good or bad thing depending on your use-case and if it is public facing)

At the moment of the decision, my desktop was the primary place I did work. Due to this, I can't have it blow up on me while I work. While Arch is interesting and powerful, Ubuntu offers (at least for me) a lot more stability and lets me focus on other things than maintaining my own OS installation.