I've never had a problem running an "unstable" or "testing" version of a Linux distro.
The main downside is that security updates is on a best-effort basis. The security team's focus is on stable and unstable. Testing will get them, but sometimes a few days late. While I understand their priorities, I also wish that would change.
Secondly, if you don't like change, putting off upgrades may actually make it worse for you. You will have an "OMG, they've changed everything!" shock when you upgrade rarely. OTOH if you run regular updates, you'll get small changes one at a time, boil-the-frog style. You can't opt out of changes, you can only get them in small drops, or a whole bucket at a time.
Long term, this has truth (although it's usually overstated -- most software, even internet software, that I have still works even after many years). But what I can do is decide for myself when to make that change. This is particularly important when features I need are removed, as it lets me still have working software while I look for an alternative.
> if you don't like change, putting off upgrades may actually make it worse for you.
It doesn't. UI changes, particularly, are disruptive. Having frequent small ones is far more disruptive to me than infrequent large ones.
Of course not. There are no other programms on my linux system, executing remote code. (ok, there is rust (crates), but i avoid it).
> There are so many security implications, everything is so complex that I really think having whatever is the newest release is actually the most stable strategy.
If they would only fix bugs, then yes. In reality they introduce new ones.
I like package managers in general, but for a select few tools I’ll use a more timely update process.