Fedora and Tumbleweed keep up with Arch while being easier to maintain

They can only dream about keeping up, TW especially from what I've seen, and that just proves my point: arch is harder to maintain because it's more up to date.

Also, I ran fedora for a few weeks after giving up on arch, it failed to boot multiple times after an update, and programs would randomly stop working after a reboot. I somehow had none of those issues on nobara.

Run Fedora or Tumbleweed. They will be continuously updated, and an install will last years.

It will break more often, and if you only use it to browse you'll still get all the updates you need if you used a stable distro. The only thing you're missing out on is testing the newest version of the DE. I've installed fedora for a friend like that, but I'm pretty sure it was a mistake even though they haven't had any issues so far.

There are ways around the needing a stable.

I need stable because I want my machine always to work. There's no going around that if you're running rhel on top of fedora, if fedora craps out you're not getting to rhel. Specific compatibility requirements are different story, and I agree with you on that.

Your basis for comparison is Arch which is known to be highly unstable and a handful to maintain. 😆

My basis is that I've been using linux for close to 20 years, and have tried every popular distro. In that time, only stable distros like debian never crashed or failed to boot.

Also, containers aren’t a penalty.

But you do take a performance penalty when using them...

You can break the cycle. Just because some you suffered doesn’t mean others have to. 🙂

I literally did it the other day, made a cup of coffee, and finished with both around the same time. The only thing I had to suffer through was waiting for files to transfer to and from an external drive. And I'll survive that easily if it means I'll avoid possible bugs and performance impacts.

Then there are Ansible playbooks to setup my systems.

Sweet, makes sense really