The core issue: Mint's "stability" is built on unsupported upstream software. No upstream bug fixes: If upstream fixes a crash, Mint doesn't get it. No upstream security patches: If upstream fixes a vulnerability, Mint doesn't get it.

Backporting is inconsistent: Mint sometimes backports security patches, but not all, and not quickly (this is an issue for all "distro of a distro's". Even Ubuntu LTS itself doesn't patch everything:

• "Canonical does not promise any security updates" for ~94% of its repo. Mint inherits that problem and adds its own delays.

Mint’s tiny team cannot maintain abandoned upstream versions: Red Hat can maintain old software because they pay engineers to do it while Mint can't.

Mint is essentially shipping software that nobody is maintaining; not upstream, not Canonical, and not Mint.

Examples of the real-life effect: Mint shipped a NetworkManager version with a WPA Enterprise authentication bug that upstream had already fixed. Mint never backported the fix. Result: users couldn't connect to enterprise Wi‑Fi. Mint ships a 2+ year old GNOME Calendar with known vulnerabilities and no security updates.

LiGNUts think "stable" means reliable, secure, well-tested, and enterprise-grade. But in Linux distro terminology, "stable" means unchanging, frozen, old.