Been using for a few years now and it has been the closest thing to "set up and forget" to me (I needed to install some codecs to play H.264/HEVC video). Painless upgrades, decent software catalog... It has been extremely reliable. Highly recommend it.
Mint is worked by a few people, had several large security flaws including not distributing security updates timely. They had issues in the past with their ISO being hacked.
I can empathize with the whole mint, small time dev-base stuff. It just doesn't make sense to me compared with just going straight ubuntu + cinnamon.
I've never understood that sentiment. Are there things I don't know about I should be doing?
I installed Arch probably four years ago on my laptop, and have never had to do anything but install updates and read the announcements on archlinux.org since.
I do understand the appeal of Manjaro - I did use it briefly when it first came out - but I don't see how maintaining Arch Linux would appear as being particularly complicated. I literally don't do anything with it I wouldn't do with any other OS.
Also, it seems to me that ArchLinux had less very impactfull changes in the past years because it has matured quite a lot. It's only an impression though!
It looks like Ubuntu is now comparable to Elementary. I'm going to be trying this out ASAP. Ubuntu with Wayland does a much better job with high and mixed DPI display setups. Maybe now I won't have to choose between running my 4k display at full resolution and using my trackpad.