Timothy, I am using a rolling distro for a year or two, and no breaking everyday, on the contrary! PCLinuxOS is very stable. I have just upgraded the kernel, 5 minutes ago, along with some libraries and apps like GIMP and Chrome, and everything is just perfectly fine.
I think, nowadays, the "may brake" is an old myth. ;-)
Cheers!

I'm a bit hesitant towards rolling releases since I'm dependent on 3rd party software for my daily work. I'm running Slackware64-current though.

Technically corrct, of course. However, I don't recall having to change my repositories and make a milestone upgrade with Sid as I would have to with Stable (I've not run Slackware long enough to comment on that). So, effectively, Sid is rolling-release but with less testing and updates around a certain date having more impact.
I can understand why the teams wouldn't want to provide a rolling release as it means testing every batch of updates but the fact people are able to run Sid and Slackware Current for years without issue does point to the fact that a more conservative update channel could be maintained.

That would be a problem that can be avoided by container-based application deployment.

I dare to say again: serious rolling release distros (not "test drive for free" kind of version) are not as unstable as people used to see, 10 years ago!!
Today, the use of rolling release distros is very much interesting and even needed, because not only the bugs are corrected (as in any other distro, when updates are uploaded to the repos, in between stable releases, but also software / packages upgrades are included, too.
See, you need the latest Firefox, Flash, Libreoffice, whatever, some times, not just to be up to the times we live, but to run properly your stuff, be able to open some sites, files, etc.
In that sense, and being yet VERY stable, rolling-release distros are already as mature as any home/school user (like me) need to have... as far as my PCLinuxOS experience says.

Rolling releases are not a bad thing, but they may not be useful for everyone, especially if they don't release DVDs fairly often. For example, we have a data cap, but a free period at night. It uses too much data to maintain syncing with online repos, so we just use DVDs which we can download during our free period, whereas with repos we would need a script and cron job which would be more complicated than it is worth. So DVDs have a purpose, especially when, with 3 DVDs totalling 10,000+ packages, Debian also releases them every 3 months, making it so we can get updates in a reasonable timeframe.

Does that mean that you would leave a critical security problem unpatched until the next point release is provided by Debian?

Depending on the security problem, yes, because this is a home desktop with non-critical infrastructure on a dynamic address and we have no attractive target, so I feel the chance of an inbound attack is small, and I practice extremely safe browsing habits and disable most extraneous web content, so I feel the web page vector is also a minor worry. If there was an extremely serious attack vector in software I used often, I might update it manually, but it is very hard to work with a severely limited network connection like ours. Also, there is no one around to hack into our network and computers, so the direct network attack threat is nil. And, what's more, having a restricted download allowance, we don't use the network as much as most people do, thus we have less network access time to attack in.

Rolling releases are the future. People/companies don't have the time, and for some the resources, to do a full upgrade from one version to the next. Rolling releases has it's advantages that everyone, or mostly everyone, is using the same version of software meaning your support is not so spread out over a number of releases.

I'll give you an example: I know a company who is still running RH 4.x and plan on running it until they are forced to upgrade. Why, simple, because it is working for them. They keep up with the latest update for that release but if they were on a rolling release they too would already be at version 7.x along with everyone else.

This is one of the reason I never started using Fedora, because of the short life cycles. Had Fedora been a rolling release then maybe I would have run it too. Presently I'm using Sabayon and it has been good to me. I have Centos also installed.

Rolling Releases may become more popular for desktop/home use, however, for workstations, servers etc... I do not see anything changing from the point release/stable model. Most home users will probably prefer stable releases as well...look at how long people stayed with XP, Vista and now Win 7, ok maybe not Vista (LOL). Average user wants a stable system that boots, does what its supposed to do, remains secure and is supported for as long as they have their PC. Hmm...similar needs for more serious users as well.

With that said, always will be those that love the latest and greatest and those that love to test the next versions of point releases etc...but they are probably not the majority of users.

Isn't that an oxymoron? Windows XP and secure?

LMAO, I should have said pun intended.

I don't really agree with your assessment of the situation. I have read of many issues caused by Patch Tuesday and updates to Linux distributions. A well-tested rolling release system need be no more buggy than any other update.

Are you suggesting that rolling releases are not stable? How do you come to this conclusion?
You are aware that your stable/point release have bugs int hem as well right?

Which is what a rolling release does well into the future.

How can the rolling release be the future when we already have those? They haven't proven to a panacea of any kind. As long as things break because they 'get fixed' I don't see a big change happening here anytime soon.