It is true. I'd praise Fedora currently. I have praised Arch when I used it. For all the issues I had with its outdated software, I praised Debian for that month I've used it. I had praise NixOS' rollbacks, while sparing the details on the learning curve and immense difficulty of setup and weird, obscure issues I had with it.

Ultimately, every distro without exception has some issues for different people. That's a fact. It's all about what you can and cannot live with, what fits and what doesn't fit your purposes.

I want the latest software after some good testing and on a static release if possible, with all the software available, a fast package manager, and NOT Arch, as I was done with it for various reasons. Got pissed at NixOS, OpenSUSE's zypper is the worst package manager bar none (because it's slower than the older dnf, and doesn't even have parallel downloads, and doesn't have many mirrors either). So Fedora it is. And I'll stay here for a while, seeing as there isn't anything better for me.

And I'll praise Fedora for what it does right, while casually avoiding the fact that the first thing I did after install was to install and set up dnf5, and not mentioning I had mirror issues twice in the last month (I had none in the months prior, but twice in the span of 2-3 weeks?).

Anyways, that's just me ranting about Linux distros, because as much as everyone claims they're the same (and they are when it comes to usage), they are very different when it comes to package managers, package availability, package versions, and release cycles, and those are the main differences between them all.