An operating system is a very important vector in an attack. If someone wants to hack your personal system he needs to know the operating system to know which exploits to use for example.

But if you switch which operating system you use (e.g Debian → OpenBSD → Mint → Arch → FreeBSD → ...) every week; do you become harder to attack?

**Advantages:**

* The attacker would have to search for exploits each time again
* Your system would be always up-to-date (newly installed)
* Most malware would get deleted at each new install
* If someone wants to infect you, he has to adapt code, compile, and infect you in one week.
* You're harder to fingerprint
* ...

**Disadvantages:**

* Security- & Anonymity configuration needs to be configured each time again (error prone: e.g configuring Tor wrong)
* If you switch to a weak protected operating system for a week, you're very vulnerable for that week. Kind of a Russian roulette.
* Lost of data each time (back-ups from old system can contain previous malware)

I know that when you switch from Linux distribution A to distribution B you still have the same kernel, but yet A can have vulnerabilities B doesn't have. The kernel is often adapted and not the only software in an operating system.

So, is it a good security practice to switch operating systems often considering the following cases separately:

1. Just normal use (browsing and downloading stuff)
2. To stay hidden and anonymous
3. If you know someone wants to hack your system

Would switching operating systems be more secure in one of these cases? Why (not)? Would it be more/less secure than using an updated LiveOS?

Anything else?

**tl;dr** Is switching operating systems every week a good security practice?