The OSWatershed.org project

There are some implied criticisms in this thread of Linux Distros that are very up to date - those with especially low "obsolete" percentages, according to this OSWatershed study. One critique mentioned is the notion of 'pushing out software that hasn't been tested.'

So, Linux Kernel 2.6.30.1 hasn't been tested, and any distro that already has it in its current archive is pushing untested software onto the unsuspecting and soon-to-be-regretful masses? And OpenOffice.org 3.1.1 hasn't been tested either, has it?

This doesn't make sense. Upstream does test its software pretty thoroughly in most cases, and includes the latest bug and security fixes with each new release. There is a good reason why upsteam constantly pushes out new code - to improve it. And most of the time, if not all of the time, the code is in fact better. (Yeah, I know, counter-example = Xorg regressions.)

Now, perhaps these critics actually mean to criticize bleeding edge distros that put together a compilation of very up to date software, which when put together as a whole, results in an unstable system. This is certainly possible.

However, it is also possible for an up to date system to be quite stable. May I suggest that these critics invest the time to install a Linux Distro that is both up to date and stable, and yes, I am talking about Arch Linux here - to verify for themselves whether or not both stability and currency can co-exist.

This Arch user has found the Arch rolling release model to work exceptionally well. My system is amazingly current, with only a rare, occasional, minor hiccup. A strong Arch support community and a relentless committment to KISS enable this surprising combination of stability and freshly released, up-to-date software.

Try it, before you criticize it folks. You just might be delighted :-)