I mean the main thing that makes Mint Mint is the desktop environment (cinnamon). I often argue that this interface is dated and will drive away users looking for something more modern. But functionally, it's perfectly fine.

Personally, I just think it's fun to install different distros and see the way they handle things and find one I like the most, but I've never used one that was unacceptable (except Ubuntu).

The difference between distros is just what they come packaged with. i.e. which kernel, systemd, desktop environment, update manager, package manager, etc.

If you're happy with things and nothing is acting weird or badly, You're more or less golden, like folks are saying.

Where you might find that one day you want a newer kernel or packages (which is why you'd switch to Arch or one of its derivatives), is if you ever have very new hardware (or very old hardware that just got a driver pulled into the kernel - I own a Digidesign 002Rack that is ancient, but someone finally wrote a driver for it, and it's still a great piece of audio hardware) that only has drivers in the latest kernels.

But if you're just doing web, Office type stuff, even Steam games, you shouldn't need anything more than you have already.

I am a fan of the KDE desktop, myself, and I recommend that everyone try it out at some point. But you should be able to install it onto Mint and just choose it when you login, again, no need to change distros.

I literally don't know the differences between distros

Its just what they come packaged with. Its all the same kernel. Do you like the software Mint comes with? Have you felt a need to replace a bunch? Does your computer do what you want it to?

Thats really about it. Debian is "good for servers" because it comes with software for running servers. Kali is "good for hackers" because it comes with software for hacking. Mint is "good for newbies" because it comes with software newbies expect.

Thats really pretty much it. Theres nothing stopping you from installing the software you want. If you start to feel like your distro has a bunch of stuff you dont need, then maybe you can look to other distros that dont come with that stuff.

For the most part the distros are all the same, they just configure things differently from the start or come with different packages installed. Think of it like doughnut shops, you can go to two doughnut shops and they might look a little different, be laid out a little different, ring you up a tiny bit different, but under the hood it's still a doughnut shop, a place selling fried dough rings.

The fried dough rings are the Linux kennel, the core of every distro, the color of the glaze is the distro, the "fluff" on top. You can scrape the glaze off the doughnut at one shop and put new glaze on at the other so it's a bit different, but still a doughnut.

I feel like that analogy got away from me.

So yeah, you're not really missing anything. Some people like Arch because it comes with way less preconfigured/installed so it's easier to make it exactly what you want. Newbies (I use this lovingly here) don't really care if they're using X11 or Wayland (the libraries that power how the desktop actually displays programs, sort of, massively simplifying), so they don't need Arch, they can just install a "newbie" distro and be happy. You could strip your Linux mint down to the bare bones and basically make it Arch by using a different package manager and stuff.

If you start watching distro review videos, you'll get the itch to hop. Grass is always greener on the other side of the fence.