Linux LTS vs Rolling

If what you have is fine and works, why want new software? And if you want more frequent updates, you can (a) use a faster-moving branch, which BTW Debian and Ubuntu have; or (b) switch to an OS that provides you with more recent software, e.g. Arch Linux, Manjaro, Gentoo (? not that sure about this last one). Declaring sth. stable takes time, especially if you also incorporate new stuff into it. Even after five years of development, Debian and Ubuntu release patches, because of errata in the

It's an LTS, upgrading every two years. No different than many other distros. If you want a more frequently-upgraded distro, consider OpenSuSE Leap (yearly upgrades) or Fedora (upgrades every 6 months).

Stick with LTS releases. Those make no deep changes, and are supported for (with Ubuntu) 5 years.

They really don't.This is part of the reason for the plethora of Linux distributions. Some deployments can afford the rapid pace (and consequent instability) of the short term Ubuntu releases or Fedora. Other deployments really do require the longer term stability of the more methodical Ubuntu LTS releases or CentOS / RHEL.Any improvement requires change, but not all changes are an improvement.

Just stick to a LTS branch; no reason to give up bugfixes.

Use a rolling release distribution (like Arch or the more conservative OpenSuSE Tumbleweed) if you want the latest and greatest packages. The point of LTS releases in minimal breakage during uptates coupled with some two or more years of updates.

Linux doesn't necessarily help here. Ubuntu LTS lifetime is 3-5 years, others are similar; outside this, distro maintainers think nothing of just dropping packages from the distro that the deployment may be relying on, so upgrading is not simple.

Probably time to use a distribution that does rolling releases!

Better stick to LTS distros and even then....

So, why not use a distribution that doesn't change every six months or two years? Such as Ubuntu LTS or CentOS.