Everybody keeps saying that.
But when I used Ubuntu/Debian and it had a major bug in the software that I used, which made it completely unusable, I had to wait for half a year for the next release which included the bugfix. But then it also included new bugs in other things… It was mostly broken at any point in time, bUt At LeAsT iTs sTabLe
Same can be said about Windows though… it is supposed to just work, but then why do I get a call from my parents every month cause something is broken on their Windows 10 computer?
I don’t understand either.
Personally I run it on my desktop, servers (with automatic updates, I know, I know - I like to live dangerously) and rhaspberry pi’s without any hiccups for years.
I’d install it on my car or toaster if I could.
Before that I was constantly fighting to keep my Ubuntus and Debians running…
Ubuntu was reliably bugged and I could not use the software I needed for work because of that. I had to fuck with it on a monthly basis to fix it.
Arch reliably works and is always up to date, so bugs that I experience get fixed in a timely manner.
I never had to fix it after an update. On my personal PC I have the same arch install since 2020.
Never ever did my arch not boot or not work after an update.
I literally have a web server with arch that runs automatic daily unsupervised updates (which is not recommended by arch devs tbh.) And it has been serving my personal homepage for a year without downtime or maintenance (except for 15sec post update reboots ofc.).
If you want to go beyond personal anecdotes as evidence, we both would need to conduct a significant study.
But I feel like people keep saying that arch is unstable without trying it themselves or without looking at data.