The term "stable" is ambiguous. For example, Debian is probably most prominent for stability. However, stable here means "version not changing". It does not mea

The term "stable" is ambiguous. For example, Debian is probably most prominent for stability. However, stable here means "version not changing". It does not mean "not crashing". Except that Debian is notorious for long delays between stable releases precisely because they put a high emphasis on "not crashing". Add to that that security patches are constantly backported, so that while the "version numbers" don't change (except they do), packages do get bugfixes. Stability should also mean "no interface changes". Updating Gnome 3.2 to 3.4 is ok. Updating Gnome 2 to Gnome 3 is not ok, because it radically changes the interface. Stable interfaces are generally what you get with Debian stable; it's precisely why I run it on every machine I have (from my laptop to my servers to my HTPC to (figuratively speaking) my smartphone). I switched from RedHat over ten years ago, and Slackware before that, and I haven't looked back since. I'm really disappointed that TFA didn't mention Debian. I know it's not everyone's cup of tea, but it seems pretty damn good, and It Works For Me on everything I have. The amount of software available under Debian is also incredible, and their dedication to free software is not just ideologically commendable, but very practical (did I mention the laptop originally came with Ubuntu? Crashed all the time. Replaced with Debian, with no binary drivers and nary a crash since. Closed source software (particularly drivers) suck).