Aside from patching the kernel I have done everything GP said. Just because the Arch wiki says it is unstable doesn't mean it always is. It just means Arch Linux can do breaking changes (systemd) without worrying about backwards compatibility. And FYI I wasn't defending Arch Linux. It just seems strange to me that everyone is having instability problems and I can't even reproduce it.

I also agree that you shouldn't run your production database on Arch Linux. It isn't made for workloads like that. But personally I find maintaining Arch Linux+"custom packages"(with AUR) easier then Debian+"latest packages"+"custom packages".

That is only if you use the debian-specific definition of "stable" which is "does not change". The rest of the world thinks of "less bugs" when they think of stable software.

yes, because randomly declaring the other person as using a different definition somehow adds to the conversation and changes their point.

Back here in reality, rolling release is less stable because more bugs in the software get through. And this is a reasonable expectation and not some magical fairyland where bugs never get written so being right up against the dev branch is as stable as being on the stable branch.

> Back here in reality, rolling release is less stable because more bugs in the software get through.

We really live in two different software worlds. Every software I'm using has its number of bugs a purely decreasing function of time, especially in the "main" paths and use cases.

Your statement is a logical paradox.

If it were true, it means there wouldn't be bugs in the first place because they wouldn't have gotten written. The very fact that the bugs got written implies new bugs can, and will, be introduced.