To be fair, I'm not sure any linux veterans are using Ubuntu. Its a popular OS, but its not a good OS. (Think terrible pop music that teenagers will still listen to)
Even Debian has lost its favorability by having sooo much legacy bloat, bugs, and outdated kernels that wont run Nvidia GPUs(2023) or other recent peripherals.
I'd be much more curious how Fedora or OpenSUSE hold up.
"Sorry a decade of use is not enough to be considered an expert. Also your experience is useless because it's on a distro I don't like."
This is just pointless gatekeeping doubled down on at this point. People can be experts and use Kubuntu. People can be veterans and use Ubuntu. People can be absolute beginners and use Arch or OpenSUSE or literally any other distro. Use of distro is in no way shape or form indicative of experience other than that some are easier to get started with for absolute beginners than others. But that doesn't make them any less good.
It's a personal choice with each options having its own pros and cons. Not some indicator of experience or knowledge.
What is it that makes one a "Linux expert"? Knowing bash/awk well? Embracing the pain that some other distros are? Using Vim? If it's any of those then I'm definitely no expert, as I primarily use Python whenever bash starts to get even a bit complex, selected Kubuntu because I didn't have to deal with a bunch of source issues I had with Ubuntu (due to licensing; also avoided Arch as I heard it's a nightmare, but occasionally work on a CentOS box as part of my job), and do almost everything re text in Emacs.
I’ve been continually using Linux for various purposes since the late 90s, and recently wrote a non-trivial kernel module for an embedded device. So I’m veteran-ish.
I tried Ubuntu on my MBP because I thought its popularity would mean the best chance of things working out of the box. I’m long past having time to spend on getting basic things working.
ubuntu installs and runs easily. Other versions of linux - it depends.