Step into the modern era. Use Arch.
Modern = full of bugs. If you want stable/secure workhorse OS you need to accept older software version branches that are properly maintained.
I didnt ask you to run bleeding edge or even beta branches of software.
I firmly understand using older versions of things often... Hell I have to keep an old AIX 6.x box operating because the app it runs, wont function on AIX 7.x for some freaky reason.
But thinking you need old software for security and stability, without being able to use some more modern things, is ludicrous.
It's not about running bleeding edge. Arch uses more recent packages and libraries which have had less time to stabilize than older packages. If you're willing to install App images, Snaps, PPAs, or just compile yourself you can run more recent packages on Debian Stable. The point is that your kernel and the software you don't care about is stable. Preferable to start from a stable OS and introduce instability where needed than to switch to a distro which is using the latest releases of all software packages.
On Debian I usually use AppImages or Snaps for programs that I would prefer be up to date (FreeCAD/Cura Slicer).
I switched from CentOS to Debian a few years back and Debian has given me ZERO issues. When I was young and dumb I ran distros like Gentoo and Ubuntu and I learned a lot from all the many times I had to fix problems caused by bad updates.
I have never understood this argument. My Rhythmbox plays music, Thunar opens files, Remmina remotes Windows... Why do I need the newest version of something? I have never had Mint or Debian not be able to do something I wanted it to do.
(post is archived)