I use OSX Yosemite and Windows 7 daily, they're my two favorites. W7 for the compatibility and extensibility, OSX for the fantastic human interface design, memory management, and optimization. I use Ubuntu 14.04 LTS for my Linux eSXI VMs due to how rock solid and memory efficient it is. I use FreeNAS (FreeBSD) on my other server to serve as a SAN for the eSXI nodes because of the great performance and features of ZFS.
I haven't really branched out from these OSes because they suit my needs perfectly.

Mostly OS X now; looking forward to Yosemite.

I have a desktop with Windows 8, which I rarely use. I used to think that this OS wasn't so bad, but now it looks hideous to me. It blows my mind that they're keeping the design for the next instalment. I gave Linux a bash some time ago, mainly Arch and Debian. I really tried to get into it, learning bash and stuff. In the end it was too much tinkering for my liking. I never stopped using Debian on my server, though. It's easier to just set it and forget it.

Windows OS X

Linux.

I have Manjaro (which is simply an Arch offshoot intended to be more convenient for everyday desktop use out of the box) on my desktop and Debian on my laptop.

>>1139
How does Manjaro stack against Debian?

I'm on Linux Mint Debian Edition right now. Installed it before finding out it's on the way to a major shift of direction away from Debian testing. Overall I didn't feel like losing all the polish regular Mint has was worth it.
Thinking of migrating to Arch(or Manjaro, maybe Archbang) or going back to Crunchbang(it's still Debian, but at least it's fucking sexy) when I have time to mess with the system again.

>>1140

Manjaro is the same concept as Archbang, a desktop-ready Arch. The difference is that Manjaro is actually maintained and has a community.

Arch repositories and the AUR are far superior to the Debian/Mint/Ubun2 repos. Stable releases of everything are available on the Arch repos nearly immediately, which as you well know isn't the case in Debian-based systems.

Windows 7, because I'm a big lazy dumb.
I used to used Parabola GNU Linux (a GNU approved Arch variant) a bit. Same reasons everyone likes Arch I suppose, but with bonus ideological silliness.
In the past I've thought about trying to make an up to date Darwin distribution, however that's apparently difficult and getting more difficult as Apple releases less and less code. It would be kind of interesting in a silly hipster-ish way. Failing that, I also want to try OpenBSD a little bit. It's apparently the sanest of any modern desktop OS in terms of code quality and the like.

>>1175
Whatever gets the job done, I say.

Xubuntu, I use it only on my laptop though.
I'd have it on my desktop too but linux doesn't have many games, and games are the reason I spent $800 building this thing.

>>1177
>linux doesn't have many games
1- It has, now.
2- Most of the ones it doesn't have can be run through Wine.

>>1178
Only 1 of the games I regularly play are linux compatible and I'm not interested in Super Tux Kart or wasting an hour configuring wine to have the game run at 15 frames per second.

Debian stable, nowadays. I used to use Arch, but systemd and various other shit came along with a steady downturn in general, so I jumped ship to one of the only remaining (at the time) options in Debian. Howewer, a few months after that, Debian made the decision to eventually switch to systemd as well, so I'm not sure where to run once the current stable release becomes obsolete.

>>1176
Realistically you don't encounter many OS level bugs these days unless you're doing something weird, yes.
I have an idealized image from what I've heard of live-hackable Lisp and Smalltalk machines of a system where the source for everything is easy to bring up and understand and modify. Obviously not even OpenBSD fits that bill, anything that simple would be a toy OS unfit for normal use. But it's nice to daydream about, I suppose.

This is a really interesting project. I wonder why it hasn't caught on more.
>Like other device driver interfaces used in Operating Systems today, UDI defines an architecture and a set of APIs for use between the driver and the surrounding system. This allows drivers and OSes to be developed independently. UDI goes a step further and provides APIs that are OS-neutral and platform-neutral, allowing multiple OSes and platforms to use the exact same driver.
http://www.project-udi.org/