Intel Laptop Users Should Avoid Linux 5.19.12 To Avoid Potentially Damaging The Display

[MadCatX]

Not really. Many people expect a smooth ride. That's the real problem. As I said in my first post, it's layer 8. If you don't know you sign up for testing, then use a different distro. It doesn't help that most stable distros kinda suck and come with lousy defaults

This is more of a philosophical problem. Just because you are the first to discover any problems doesn't mean that software should be released with loads of bugs for you to run into. FWIW, for a rather "punk" rolling distro Arch has been much less of a hassle to run than most of the "serious" distros.

My main motivation to use Arch is that I end up having to undo a distro to configure it in a sane way, so I'd rather just do the second part only. I could like a stable one that is like that.

Are some minimal installs of Debian or CentOS Stream not worth consideration?

[sinepgib]

This is more of a philosophical problem. Just because you are the first to discover any problems doesn't mean that software should be released with loads of bugs for you to run into. FWIW, for a rather "punk" rolling distro Arch has been much less of a hassle to run than most of the "serious" distros.

"Loads" of bugs is a bit extreme IMO, and some bugs will always slip through the cracks, specially hardware dependent ones where the specific combination of components seem to be a requirement for it to trigger. For example, for this one several of us had a good experience with this kernel and Intel hardware, so it clearly depends on more factors than just running in a few Intel laptops, and there used to be some mobos with buggy firmware that the kernel needed to workaround, etc. Rolling distros will always be the ones to catch them.
Now, my personal, anecdotal, not general experience (sorry, I need to be emphatic), is similar to yours, I don't often run into major problems with it. But when it's a matter of luck, it's a matter of when. I'm OK with it and so I use it. Several friends of mine expect things to always work but still use Arch because, I don't know, they're younger and they want to feel 1337 or some other bad reason?
There's also the part of paying attention to announcements, as configs can break compatibility at any time with rolling release distros.

Are some minimal installs of Debian or CentOS Stream not worth consideration?

Honestly, I have an irrational hatred for shell scripts being used for everything, and Debian is quite heavy on that. For example, most of the services, last time I tried it, were not natively migrated to systemd. I could settle for execline scripts with s6, but full shell scripts I hate. Having the de facto standard of network configuration be ifupdown is also a no-go. Note I see how it makes sense for them, as it's meant to be stable not only in the sense of robustness, but also in the sense of administration, you expect to configure it once and for that to mostly work across several releases. I just don't want that on my personal system, that's all.
CentOS Stream I haven't tried, the only RPM distro I used was CentOS 6 at a previous job about 7-8 years ago and I hated how extremely outdated some packages (compilers, subversion, Perl, etc) were, there was a lot of missing functionality I needed at the time, or that at least would have made my life much easier. Ubuntu distros are bearable in that regard, but Debian based means script heavy as well, and its defaults are precisely what made me switch from it. Other than those two things, I used to love Xubuntu.
If I had to admin a server I'd probably go either of those three tho (of course, in the case of CentOS whatever is the current one).

I'd like advice on a different stable distro, but I don't think I'll put too much time this time around, I waste too much time on the computer already. Something that is remotely stable, works and doesn't fall for the things I described before will probably do.

[NateHubbard]

I'm typing this right now from an Intel laptop (Dell Latitude 5591) with 5.19.12-200.fc36.x86_64. I haven't noticed any issues

Maybe because that machine has an Nvidia GPU.

[ll1025]

35-352271_smug-saitama-smug-anime-face-know-your-meme.jpg

Me, using a LTS distro that other people call "obsolete crap", watching kids on the bleeding edge getting their papercuts...

But what about your iops and slower rng performance???

[M@GOid]

But what about your iops and slower rng performance???

It is the price you pay for being smug :-)

[hiryu]

I was bit by this... I only tried it about 2-4 times before reverting. I only got a black screen that seemed to be kicking in around the same time KMS was kicking in. Figured it was a bug and reverted.

Screen seems fine, and because I just got a black screen, there was probably little to no risk in my case.

[Duff~]

Debian folks, rise.

[sinepgib]

Maybe because that machine has an Nvidia GPU.

Mine is Intel only (Carbon X1 8th Gen), so that's not (necessarily) it.

[macemoneta]

Me, fondly remembering when Win2K shipped with 63,000 known bugs.

https://www.zdnet.com/article/bugfest-win2000-has-63000-defects/

[doragasu]

Arch is awesome. Yes, when you install it you sign for some eventual breakage. But that's the reason you install the OS from the ground up and you never update if you don't have the time to fix things: you will have to eventually fix it. That said, I've been an Arch user for about 8 years, and I had breakages about two times. Archlinuxarm thoug is a different beast. In the Arch install I have in my Pi4 board, things breaking on updates is not uncommon at all