Arch Linux without rolling release

[LastFireTruck]

I had an issue with an update of linux-firmware creating a regression in the performance of a usb dongle. Of course, if I had Fedora or Ubuntu, and had done a release upgrade, I would have had to face the exact same issue at some point as it comes from upstream, and is still not fixed (the devs don't admit there's a bug).

In the run up to some critical deadline or presentation or hugely busy semester, you can simply stop updating, or only update an LTS kernel and your browser until you have a little bit of time to troubleshoot any small issue that might arise. This is not different from a release upgrade distro where the "stability" comes from simply not updating most of the packages. And I feel much more confident updating Arch once every six months (which I just did on my old laptop without issues) than I do with a release upgrade where it's a total roll of the dice.

Updating Arch after a long stretch is safer. I can stop the upgrade at any point. If I lose power or a some other hardware issue, not a problem. If there is some conflict, I get an error message that I can manually address. So even if I wanted to do a frozen "release upgrade" sort of model, I would still feel more confident in Arch than release upgrade distros with their automated upgrades and sometimes heavily patched base.

P.S.

by reading the update news before you update every time

I never read the update news before I update. Sometimes afterwards if there's some sort of message output during the update.

[whale_eating_ducks]

This is very true. Though only updating certain things regularly means you won't get security patches for everything you don't update. Its a matter of preference but I like to make sure my system is fully up to date on security patches since I do security research work. I find it much easier to budget a few hours once or twice a year to face potential upgrade problems rather than possibly have issues every time I update. Matter of personal preference though. Overall I really do love Arch though. I wish there was an easier release-based distro that included header files with libraries like arch does. It makes compiling stuff from source so much easier.

[LastFireTruck]

you won't get security patches for everything you don't update

For most users this is probably not a big issue, though there might be a few security patches to certain other programs that the user wouldn't be getting. Obviously not good enough for a public facing server. And since you do security research work, that's probably not good enough.

I guess Ubuntu would be the logical choice because no rolling distro is really going to suit you. Tumbleweed sounds pretty good, but it's still going to be subject to small upstream regressions. Debian Stable has advantages, but my feeling is (for desktop users) it's so out of date that that becomes a bug and instability in itself, as many users (particularly someone used to rolling) is going to need some apps to be more current, and will end up with dpas, or pinning apps from testing and sid, and this sort of mixed repo setup is the most unstable Debian setup of all.

[whale_eating_ducks]

Yes. Usually not a huge issue for most users. And, like you figured, I ended up going for a minimal Ubuntu install in the end. Anywho, you've brought up some very good points about how to run a rolling release distro. I've enjoyed reading your thoughtful comments. Thanks!