Why do you have a negative view of fedora? It's been the best distro for almost a decade.
I use Debian and Arch, used to use Ubuntu and Gentoo many years ago ... I like the model of Arch (and Debian and Gentoo) of being minimal by default, you add the components you want when you want them, for some components you can choose between the stalwart classic and the new upstart depending on what you need. Use boring technology where you can, use the new thing where you have a specific need, stuff will work much more reliably, without all sorts of excuses about how it's some other old component's fault.
To give two examples of where it might not be best — running Fedora on a server, or running Fedora on a workstation where you need long-term stability and support for running CAD/CAM or CFD software which doesn’t play nicely with major OS changes every few months.
Half-kidding, this is a normal experience for people with macbooks coming from macos, ie updating the os and praying that all software will be working properly after. So it is probably not such a big deal in this case.
But on long-running machines (i.e. not containers or temporary boxes) I concur. I use either RHEL or AlmaLinux for those. But given that RHEL and AlmaLinux are based on Fedora, I don't really consider them to be different. Everything you know and love from Fedora (for the most part) will be the same there. For example most of my setup scripts I write for Fedora work without change on AlmaLinux, and package names, config files, etc are very (though not entirely) consistent.
Software like CAD/CAM is indeed a lot more painful on Fedora, although IMHO that has basically been solved by distrobox. For softare like that that wants a specific Ubuntu version or whatever, I just install it in a distrobox and export it back to the host. My biggest complaint is that it usually works so well that I sometimes forget it's inside a distrobox :-)