I don't know. That may be true if you want to be on Arch, with something super custom, but on a long term distro, you make your choices, you customize and then don't touch for years.
I agree with you mostly that I'm not interested in tweaking bells and whistles endlessly but you don't really have to do that in KDE or gnome.
>I don't know. That may be true if you want to be on Arch, with something super custom, but on a long term distro, you make your choices, you customize and then don't touch for years.
I've been on Red Hat (my first distro in school), Ubuntu, Arch and then Fedora for quite some time. Ironically Arch was the most stable one for them despite being almost bleeding edge.
Not saying macOS has not issues with this, but in my experince they much less common.
>I agree with you mostly that I'm not interested in tweaking bells and whistles endlessly but you don't really have to do that in KDE or gnome.
Well this is a matter of taste too. I can't stand modern KDE (but like modern Gnome quite a lot even though I find its "overgrown" mobile-like controls a bit strange).
On rolling release, it changes all the time, you risk new bugs, but old bugs get fixed.
On an LTS distro, it never changes. That also means you're stuck with whatever bugs are there until the next release.
Fedora is somewhere in the middle, and I've had some pretty bad luck with updates there, over the years.
Like with most things, there are tradeoffs to every decision.
I've found using Debian on desktop more fragile because I'm often trying get newer software installed that isn't in the stable repo. Rolling release and the AUR means I don't need to do that with Arch. Flatpaks have also come a long way.
I agree with you mostly that I'm not interested in tweaking bells and whistles endlessly but you don't really have to do that in KDE or gnome.