Linux distros do differentiate between security updates and feature updates. Only the former are recommended to be done automatically.

Microsoft takes the idea of the latter, buries the distinction in the former idea, and shoves "feature" updates down your throat in the name of "security".

> unfortunately neither of them are formally verified operating systems with any kind of guarantees about correctness and security, so you've just got to keep up with patches.

I'm unsure that conclusion follows from those premises, since patches are not formally verified either.

I should have explained it better. Good practice would be to add a regression test when making a bugfix patch, it's not as good as formal verification but it's better than nothing.

I update once a day manually. I build a few packages, but I rely on linux-tkg for the kernel and pull the rest from AUR using git. The Arch Linux package maintainers are very reliable, rolling release is just better when testing is reliable. No big surprises.

Using a rolling release distro usually qualifies as unstable bleeding edge updates I think :)

I guess, and I would not use it on a production server, but on desktop both Ubuntu and Windows can be unstable as well despite spending months instead of weeks or days testing their updates. Arch keeps it simple, there is not much to test, basically just the core, if the kernel, systemd, X, pipewire and gcc or llvm works I can do my job or take care of the rest. Even if they don't I can take care of it. There is not much to it. One can always revert too, the packages are all git based as well. A working system is always a few commands away.