I think the unstable packages were necessary for a 'modern' desktop experience three years ago, but today I'm much happier with my LTS machine than 11.10 -- in fact, I'm considering Mint 12 or perhaps an entirely different distro. I prefer apt, so Debian maybe what I seek. If we're supporting other people's computers, shouldn't we use stable for our own sanity.
Anyone using Arch?
I used to, but they've done some fairly dumb things too, like making python 3.0 the default python over 2.x, which broke a bunch of stuff, dunno if it is still the default; also they just recently got package signing.
I've also have Arch Linux installs break in fantastic and new ways just from using the Arch User Repository, which is supposed to be the "big" positives of using Arch.
I'm still a debian guy, either using stable or testing (or something stable with only a few packages pulled from testing as needed), but I am a pretty big fan of Linux Mint for desktop PCs I don't feel like configuring.
Mint's Ubuntu version includes a lot of bugfixes for Ubuntu, plus it includes MATE/Gnome2, and their Debian version is a rolling-release of Debian Unstable with some Linux Mint add-ons and apt-pinning to prevent packages from "unstable" that are truly not stable from being upgraded.
If you want a near bleeding-edge that isn't as much of a sloppy mess as Arch Linux, go with Debian Testing or Unstable. They have many more maintained packages in their official repositories anyways.