> used the Arch Linux packages, meaning I always had the latest ones. This is provably false, as I can witness from my recent experience where Arch has 14 mont

> used the Arch Linux packages, meaning I always had the latest ones. This is provably false, as I can witness from my recent experience where Arch has 14 month old, long superseded, version of a package, while other Linux distros (including Manjaro, but also Fedora, Debian, Ubuntu, openSuse, etc.) use the most/more recent version. ---- > AFAIK, Manjaro is behind by like a month? In which case, why even bother with rolling release? Even if this were true (and it isn't, see the sibling comment), I've seen responses like yours and I don't understand them. Where would you draw the line when it comes to rolling? You say that one month behind is too long. Is 2 weeks ok? One week? 3 days? 1 day? 12 hours? Why does it even matter? To answer you from my perspective: I "bother" with Manjaro because I like the rolling distro philosophy, but I also value stability. If those two weeks of delay will bring me packages which are better tested and more stability overall - I'm all for it. Oh and I don't even update as soon as an update hits the stable channel, I regularly decide to wait at least a day or two to see if others have any problems with the update. For other people, who are more impatient (and more adventurous), Manjaro offers two other channels: testing and unstable.