Linux software sucks donkey balls so lets all use 2 year old Linux software and backport "important security updates"...

This cancer has to die.

...

You're just complaining for the sake of complaining. protip: there are many different tools because there are many different needs

But that's true. It's precisely why Debian gets so much use on servers that have to be stable.

Do you really think that Debian maintainers know more about software than the original authors?

Debian """stable""" is a placebo.

About how to put that software together into a group of other software to form an OS? Absolutely. Yes they do.

...

Changes in software cause problems. Even when they behave as expected. Behavior is changed or outright removed all the time. If it would be bad for your system to stop working then you want as little of those changes as possible. However, you also want security issues to be fixed, because security issues can also fuck you over.
So ideally you want a release channel that gives you security updates (which are necessary) but not other updates (which are dangerous for your particular situation). That's what Debian Stable is. And what CentOS is, and Ubuntu LTS releases.

false. if linux sofware actually sucked donkey balls, donkey communes everywhere would have a reduction in violence by 85%.

We can do better. let's suck donkey balls before the terrorists figure it out before us!!1

Then don't use debian.
You don't get to complain about one distro and drag the entire linux ecosystem just because you lack sysad.

Application software != OS.

Linux sucks so hard because distro developers refuse to understand this fact. BSD, Windows, and macOS all understand that base != ports.

Is apartheid linux still alive?

It's not that Linux distributors don't understand that there's a difference, it's that there genuinely is no difference in the case of Linux distributions. GNU/Linux distros are assembled out of spare parts created by separate projects. Any one part has alternatives and could be removed if you really wanted to. There are distros without systemd, distros without bash, distros without glibc, distros without the GNU coreutils, distros without Linux itself, distros without GCC, it all exists.
It's Linux's defining trait. And it has some sucky consequences and some great consequences.

You know what the most stable operating system is? One that isn't developed anymore. Go use Windows 2000 then.

I guess it's up to you to tell the world that those features they seek out distros for are actually of no value. To think that RedHat's whole market value could collapse just from the truth spoken by a LARPer on an site for nazi pedophiles!

Changes that aren't completely 100% backwards compatible are often necessary and can break systems that rely on the old behavior.
Any system you set up is at risk of being broken by such a change.
If it's just your PC then that's an acceptable risk. If it's a server that should be up 24/7 and that loses your company money when it goes down then you want to minimize that risk.
Stable releases minimize that risk.

Have you heard of this really successful software called WinRAR?

...

You were such a terrible enterprisee that you didn't hire people ahead of time, not the software's problem.

Ahhhhhh it's another salty dev doesn't appreciate people messing with "his" code post.

When humanity can start taking responsibility for the overgrown manchildren running the show, they might finally achieve par with chimpanzees.

Grow up.