@ablackcatstail Actually it is pretty rare depending on how you chose to run. If you go stable and not use too much alpha software you are pretty good.
I have been running from the testing repo for years and still rolling. Arch has been more stable for me than when I used static release ditros.
@ablackcatstail I have nothing against Ubuntu and other 'commercial' distros actually. I think it is good some distros explore ways to gain revenue differently.
I actually used Ubuntu prior to Arch when I switched 2011. Ubuntu do have some technical disadvantages. Like for me I had to reinstall it every 6 month dist-upgrade as it had some mishap. Ubuntu was the reason I could use Linux only 2008 when I ditched the dual boot.
@ablackcatstail For me it is Arch Linux to the bone though... Arch is so convenient. It handles everything i throw at it and often with ease. No other distro I have tried comes close to it. Which I why I have stuck with it so long.
Just love the KISS principle... ;))
@ablackcatstail
I on occasion get a package or two that breaks every couple months from an update, but the entire system going down has been a very rare occurrence for me. I've never had to rely on off-disk backups with arch, just on-disk timeshift backups once or twice.
I've found in my personal experience that arch is actually more stable than other distros such as Ubuntu, but that might just be me.
I've also found that regardless of distro, a distro is most likely to break if you haven't updated in at least a year and try a full upgrade of everything all at once.