I feel this approach merely _accumulates_ breaking changes (breaking in the sense that they break your workflow, not that Firefox fails to start). When you upd

I feel this approach merely _accumulates_ breaking changes (breaking in the sense that they break your workflow, not that Firefox fails to start). When you update Debian to a new release, you suddenly get a huge influx of changes: new Firefox, new DE, new bash, new kernel, new email client, etc. Everything gets updated at once. It's likely that more than one thing will break your workflow, and you'll spend a significant amount of time dealing with all of those at once. Arch just spreads that over time. Instead of having to deal with ALL of these things at once every 6 months (or every two years), I deal with tiny changes very often. It's very unlikely that both the kernel AND Firefox will have changes that affect me on the same day. I also feel it's more sustainable to deal with small change once every couple of weeks, than huge changes twice a year. Arch is stable in that the changes per day ratio is constant over a long period of time, while's Debian is 0 changes for months, and then hundreds of changes at once.