Which distribution to choose after Arch Linux?

Question

linux

Hello. I had Arch Linux, I didn’t experience any special problems, but I got tired of the fact that after the update there is a high probability that something will fall off.
The requirements are low - I want a stable desktop system with a minimum of software (I mainly use the player and browser at home). In the future, I want to set up a small server at home to store movies (dnla, torrents - nothing complicated), so it is desirable that the distribution kit fits both purposes, but not necessarily.
I tend to Debian, but the Linux Distribution Chooser, besides him, also advised Kubintu, OpenSuse, Fedora, Mandriva. Ubuntu is boring, I don't want it. On the Internet they write that Debian has old packages, and in general it is rarely updated (stable). Is this really so, and how old is the software there? If not Debian, then I also considered Fedora, but they write that this is a Red Hat testing ground and it lags quite often. I can't say anything about other distributions.
The bottom line: Which distribution kit to choose for the desktop, if Arch Linux was installed, and it worked quite well, but I want a stable system. There is experience in Linux, Ubuntu is not offered.

Answer 1

Debian is conservative and therefore very stable, in the sense that, as in Arch, "updated and something broke off" will not work with a very high probability.

Answer 2

Yes, put you Mint :)

Answer 3

keep calm and do nothing
for a few years on arch, then a year on ubuntu, now I'm going back. There is something out of the box, but in general, not ice. Old software and the illusion of stability

Answer 4

Strangely, I have not heard such nonsense about Arch for a long time, only on the ubuntu forum, I have big doubts that you used Arch. Leave ubuntu to be foolish.

Answer 5

For Mint.
Also take a look at CrunchBang (ubuntu + openbox).
Also an Arch user, it happens to them, now before updating I try to go to their website and look at the news, usually they write about problems during the update and their solution.

Answer 6

This is of course a matter of taste, but I dare to suggest that you look towards openSUSE. I myself switched to it from archa a year and a half ago and, to be honest, I am satisfied. I use it as a desktop axis at home + a polygon for web development. During the entire period of use, I did not encounter any serious problems. So hated by many, YaST allows manual editing of configs and then it does not break the tower (if everything is written correctly). So I advise if you don’t use it, then at least test it).

Answer 7

Slackware

Answer 8

My personal choice: Desktop & Book: OpenSuse, Simple servers: CentOS, Commercial servers: Suse Enterprice server

Answer 9

centos? There's just nothing in the repositories that can break an ordinary user)

Answer 10

Debian for server, Ubuntu for desktop.
Debian hasn't really been conservative since backports became the official repository. But for the desktop, there is little in backports.
In Ubuntu, all the power (and damnation) is in the PPA - the latest software is always at your service. True, people will install everything from the PPA for themselves, then they will do an apt-get upgrade without looking and they always break off)

Answer 11

I used to be on Mandriva (the first distribution), used a bootable SlackWare a couple of times, switched to OpenSuse, then I got bored, now I'm on Fedora - so far I like everything. It's no secret that Fedora is a testing ground for RHL, but if you do not include test repositories, then there are no problems (personally, I have not had one yet). I receive stable updates with almost the newest versions of packages.