I've never used plain Debian, for example, but I like Ubuntu.And before Debian people attack me - yeah, I know, I know, it's supposedly much simpler and easier to install these days.But it certainly didn't use to be, so I never had any reason to go for it.
I've used different distributions over the years.
Right now I happen to use Fedora 9 on most of the computers I have, which really boils down to the fact that Fedora had fairly good support for Power PC back when I used that, so I grew used to it.
But I actually don't care too much about the distribution, as long as it makes it easy to install and keep reasonably up-to-date.
I care about the kernel and a few programs, and the set of programs I really care about is actually fairly small.
And when it comes to distributions, ease of installation has actually been one of my main issues - I'm a technical person, but I have a very specific area of interest, and I don't want to fight the rest.
So the only distributions I have actively avoided are the ones that are known to be "overly technical" - like the ones that encourage you to compile your own programs etc.Yeah, I can do it, but it kind of defeats the whole point of a distribution for me.So I like the ones that have a name of being easy to use.I drew the ire of some Slackware users for stating that, in my opinion, Slackware isn't user friendly due to it's lack of graphical administration tools, lack of a package manager with dependency checking, and lack of a decent repository of additional software packages.Some even took issue with my using a conventional definition of user friendly, specifically that a distribution be intuitive and relatively easy for even a non-technical user to install, configure, and maintain. Nobody would question Linus Torvalds' expertise when it comes to Linux or his technical skills yet he stresses ease of installation and ease of keeping a distro up to date.In that context his preference for Fedora and Ubuntu over what he calls "overly technical" distributions makes a lot of sense.