> While this is true it widens the gap between stable -> unstable. So your only choice is either have really old [1] or really new. It does. It's not necessar

> While this is true it widens the gap between stable -> unstable. So your only choice is either have really old [1] or really new. It does. It's not necessarily something that I consider a good approach in every way, I just understand it. I myself took it for a few years, during the Great Rush to Rewrite Everything between cca. 2012 and 2017. I used to run Gentoo (at home) and Arch (at work) up to that point but I temporarily moved over to Debian (which I hadn't used since 2007 or so) until the storm settled for a bit. Yeah, it does mean that things that are broken tend to remain broken for two years, but you also don't need a set of new workarounds for two years. I very un-fondly remember that back in 2013 or so when I said no more, my machine was perpetually broken in some way. (FWIW, I've been back on Arch on my main station for more than two years now, it's gonna be hard to start a flamewar with me by arguing about Arch's package selection :-) ). I guess it depends a lot on everyone's usage patterns, too, there's a lot of diversity in this space, more than many younger FOSS developers (and UX designers!) realize. Some of the nastier things I do to my station are deeply rooted in my first days of running Unices almost twenty years ago, and while I do my best to make sure that not all old habits die hard, it can be hard to convince people to let go of the good ones. (Of course, "good ones" is subjective, hence the flamewars. I guess 50% of my habits are good, I just don't know which 50%).