Linux

I guess I'm kind of confused as to the debate between Bleeding Edge vs Stable. I get the concept on paper, but what packages are so imperative that you need a Distro that is "Bleeding Edge". I run Pop_OS and it works great on my hardware(System76 so it kind of has the home field advantage). I have an old laptop running LMDE that doesn't ever need rebooted and it has every package I need for it to accomplish its job.

Others have given better advice than I will, but maybe determine why you need something that's bleeding edge. If the only answer is "Cuz Shiny new stuff!" I don't think it's needed that bad and tailor your setup for stability and functionality. I prefer Just Works Distros though. VM's are also a thing if you want to do some Distro Hopping

I'm sure I'll get shouted down for this suggestion by the haters, but I'm going to make it anyway because it's actually really good:

Use an Ubuntu LTS flavour like Kubuntu. Then, add flatpak and for apps you want to keep up to date, install either the flatpak or the snap, depending on the particular app. In my personal experience, sometimes the flatpak is better and sometimes the snap is better. (I would add Nix to the mix, but I wouldn't call it particularly easy for beginners.)

This gets you:

1. A reliable Debian-like base that you only have to upgrade to new releases every 2 years
2. Up-to-date apps, including confinement for those apps
3. New kernels every 6 months (if you choose - you don't have to, though)

I have a gentoo desktop but for a convenient middle ground just put Debian on my laptop. It’s stable, things just work out of the box, maintainers/devs are competent, they haven’t drunk the snap/flatpack kool-aid…

Switching to Testing is always an option but I’ve not found the need to do that yet when I can install programs from a deb package or just compile from source and install it in ~/.bin in my home directory.

I'd say Fedora is the middle-ground. You get up-to-date software in a stable distribution with daily security updates, and fixed OS upgrades each year.

Opensuse tumbleweed. The packages go through a testing process unlike Fedora AFAIK.

Debian with Flatpak and a Distrobox container running Arch is pretty good if you want a stable desktop with rolling packages.

From anecdotal experience I can only tell you that not once have I witnessed a showstopper bug on Arch. I recommend using btrfs and snapshots to really make sure however.

Fedora, Ubuntu etc. use up to date packages if you're using flatpaks and snaps. Nix I suppose fits the bill better but it's a harder distro to "learn" than arch imo

How about Rhino? Rolling release of Debian Sid iirc

IMO Debian is already pretty far middle-ground. The packages are new enough for my personal usage.

I've been using Arch for a year and nothing has broken. Did have to "fix" a lot of stuff after install because it was my first time using Arch and didn't realize all the other stuff I had to install... Mainly to get my Nvidia GPU to work. But a few hours later and it's been rock solid since.

Garuda. It's an Arch derivative that creates a snapshot of your system every time you update. That way, if the update breaks something, you can just roll your system back to the last working snapshot.

My recommendation would be Debian + Flatpak & Appimages (or + Snaps if you're the devil). Super stable, but also access to the latest.

Fedora is also a middle ground too, but they're pushing flatpaks heavily so it might not matter anyway since Fedora + flatpak and Debian + flatpak are about the same.

Debian Testing.