[friendzis]

> very stable due to rolling-release producing small changes

Can you elaborate on the chain of thought here? The small changes at high frequency means that something is nearly constantly in a <CHANGED> state, quite opposite from stable. Rolling release typically means that updates are not really snapshotted, therefore unless one does pull updates constantly they risk pulling a set of incompatible updates. Again, quite different from stable.

[bri3d]

It's the same train of thought as the modern cloud software notion that deploying small changes more often is safer than bundling "releases"; if you upgrade 3 packages 3x a week (or deploy 50 lines of code 3x a week), you catch small issues quickly and resolve them immediately, rather than upgrading 400 packages 1x a year (or deploying 50,000 lines of code 2x a year), where when things break you have a rather tall order just to triage what failed.

I think there are advantages to both, but I will say that I've found modern Arch to be quite good. The other huge benefit of Arch is the general skill level present in the user base and openness of the forums; when something breaks it's usually easy to google "arch + package name broken" and immediately find a forum thread with a real fix.

I don't think I'd use Arch for a corporate production server for change management reasons alone, but for a home desktop and my home server, it's actually the distribution that's required me to do the _least_ "Linux crap" to keep it going.

[bee_rider]

It’s stable in the way that a person taking small predictable steps at a time is stable compared to somebody who making large random lurching steps. Sure, the system is often changed, but if only a few packages have changed, should there be a problem it is easy to identify the culprit.

Although it is hard to say. Ubuntu also has, I guess, intentional behavior that is hard to distinguish from a bug, like packages switching from apt to snap. So it might just be that my subjective experience feels more buggy.

[roer]

I think op meant the subjective feeling of having a system that runs in a stable manner. I don't quite follow their reasoning either (maybe the smaller changesets expose compatibility bugs before affecting general ux?), but I agree that arch was a joy for me to use and felt "stable".