This really depends.

This is related to another phenomenon I see pop up often when newcomers switch to Linux, and that is the desire to stay on the bleeding edge to get the newest features.  The problem is this doesn't fit into the, if it ain't broke don't fix it philosophy, and what would be common sense thoughts(Don't update your studio computer without testing first) get thrown out the window.  I haven't quite put my finger on why exactly this happens, but believe it or not, I tihnk the perception of the lack of release cycles plays into this.

I have been a strong proponent of Ardour adopting a binary distribution independant package format, which has been done.  There are a variety of benefits to this(And some disadvantages for the record), but one thing I didn't think of until now is how that could affect perceptions and release cycles.  I think many people get confused by the lack of a true release cycle for much of open source development, and as a result assume they need to update as soon as possible.  A binary distribution can encourage a more stable release cycle instead I think(At least at my first thought, which means it may change in a day or two;).  As a result it might help with people that switch to Linux not to fall into the trap to assume you always have to update to the newest version as soon as possible instead of waiting for it to be packaged into a 'release'.

At any rate, this is enough rambling on that topic from me, my point being that you are absolutely correct, that often times you don't HAVE to update or tweak your OS much.  When you do update is when things tend to break, and because of this perception you have to stay up to date it means a not insignificant amount of time fooling with the OS when something breaks, as it always does eventually.

     Seablade