I think it's a mixed bag, to be truthful, and it's a circumstance that's very well described by "pick your poison."
My primary OS is also Arch Linux, and while it's certainly stable, it's not without its warts. Failure to update regularly on a rolling release distro can have absolutely disastrous consequences (though you only have yourself to blame), and a healthy dose of caution is strongly recommended whenever a major update to important software is in the pipeline (think KDE4 to KDE5 transition). I think this sort of bug (Outlook) illustrates the importance of having an abundance of caution with new software where the failure modes may not be well understood by merit of its relative youth. But with rapid releases, I think the problem is a bit more focused on the end user: Someone who is unable or unwilling to take the risk of updates causing material harm to their workflow or consuming time they can't afford in order to fix potential problems should look for more conservative release cycles. I don't think it's really a matter of "good" versus "bad" tools; that may be part of it, but I can't help myself from thinking it's a matter of misplaced expectations.
That is, it's easy to fall into the mindset of erroneously believing that faster, more rapid updates is always better without fully appreciating their impact. (I've done this more times than I'm willing to admit.)
I do think, and maybe I'm wrong (which I usually am), that those of us who tend toward using rolling release distros have a bit of a bias and a rose tint to our glasses. We almost innately know what the risks are, and I think we take that for granted by assuming most others will freely accept such risks and appreciate the occupational hazards that go hand in hand with change. Not everyone has the same degree of patience, nor the same goals or motives. I think our optimism for and evangelizing of software that pushes rapid releases (like Arch, as an example) can help create an aura that lulls those we influence into expectations that don't mesh well with their use case, their personality, or their constraints. Is that a bad thing? I don't think so (evangelizing is important), because I do agree with you: Updates can be good. I just think we're all too happy to espouse advantages while sometimes glossing over potential drawbacks (guilty again as charged!). :)
Anyway, I should apologize: I didn't mean to wax philosophical. It's late in my timezone, and I saw another Arch user who provoked me into a short essay. I agree with you and username223, but I don't have any real answer. I do think that sometimes we ought to be more cautious with our advice and perhaps weigh context more heavily than our excitement allows. (I made the mistake once of suggesting Arch to someone who really ought to use something with sturdier training wheels. My only saving grace is that he never got around to installing it.)
My primary OS is also Arch Linux, and while it's certainly stable, it's not without its warts. Failure to update regularly on a rolling release distro can have absolutely disastrous consequences (though you only have yourself to blame), and a healthy dose of caution is strongly recommended whenever a major update to important software is in the pipeline (think KDE4 to KDE5 transition). I think this sort of bug (Outlook) illustrates the importance of having an abundance of caution with new software where the failure modes may not be well understood by merit of its relative youth. But with rapid releases, I think the problem is a bit more focused on the end user: Someone who is unable or unwilling to take the risk of updates causing material harm to their workflow or consuming time they can't afford in order to fix potential problems should look for more conservative release cycles. I don't think it's really a matter of "good" versus "bad" tools; that may be part of it, but I can't help myself from thinking it's a matter of misplaced expectations.
That is, it's easy to fall into the mindset of erroneously believing that faster, more rapid updates is always better without fully appreciating their impact. (I've done this more times than I'm willing to admit.)
I do think, and maybe I'm wrong (which I usually am), that those of us who tend toward using rolling release distros have a bit of a bias and a rose tint to our glasses. We almost innately know what the risks are, and I think we take that for granted by assuming most others will freely accept such risks and appreciate the occupational hazards that go hand in hand with change. Not everyone has the same degree of patience, nor the same goals or motives. I think our optimism for and evangelizing of software that pushes rapid releases (like Arch, as an example) can help create an aura that lulls those we influence into expectations that don't mesh well with their use case, their personality, or their constraints. Is that a bad thing? I don't think so (evangelizing is important), because I do agree with you: Updates can be good. I just think we're all too happy to espouse advantages while sometimes glossing over potential drawbacks (guilty again as charged!). :)
Anyway, I should apologize: I didn't mean to wax philosophical. It's late in my timezone, and I saw another Arch user who provoked me into a short essay. I agree with you and username223, but I don't have any real answer. I do think that sometimes we ought to be more cautious with our advice and perhaps weigh context more heavily than our excitement allows. (I made the mistake once of suggesting Arch to someone who really ought to use something with sturdier training wheels. My only saving grace is that he never got around to installing it.)