Obviously, I am biased, but... [2013-07-09 11:13:08 +0100] M Saunders: > After installation you just want security and critical bug > fix updates for software, and not major version bumps, right? If you are prepared to stick to a given feature set, maybe. Then, you might be able to achieve near-absolute stability with a Debian-stable- like system. Now, in my experience, that makes any upgrade extremely painful, so I would definitely not recommend this approach to anyone with an interest in recent software. On the other hand, Arch's continuous flow of upgrades proves to be quite reliable, so long as the system is updated with a minimum degree of attention. Besides, it avoids duplicating upstream work at the distro level (such as backporting security fixes): such work can never be perfect, and has indeed been the cause of major problems in the past (Debian's openssl entropy issue likely being the most famous). I run two small-scale servers with Arch, which I only upgrade with care and when I have available time to fix potential problems. My upgrading frequency goes from a couple of times a week to once a month. About once a year, I hit an upgrade that is not straightforward, and it takes me an hour or two to fix arising issue and perform it; that is about it. -- Gaetan
