IMO Despite some unjustified rumors Arch is a very stable distro. For me it feels the same as Debian stability wise while still being on the cutting edge side. The Arch wiki is the second most important reason.
The problem there is that stable vs unstable distro uses a slightly different meaning of the word stable than you would use to talk about a stable vs unstable system.
In distro speak, a stable distro is one that changes very little over time, and an unstable one is one that changes constantly. That’s sort of tangentially related to reliability, in that if your system is reliable and doesn’t change then it’s likely to stay that way, but it’s not the same thing as reliability.
IMO Despite some unjustified rumors Arch is a very stable distro. For me it feels the same as Debian stability wise while still being on the cutting edge side. The Arch wiki is the second most important reason.
The problem there is that stable vs unstable distro uses a slightly different meaning of the word stable than you would use to talk about a stable vs unstable system.
In distro speak, a stable distro is one that changes very little over time, and an unstable one is one that changes constantly. That’s sort of tangentially related to reliability, in that if your system is reliable and doesn’t change then it’s likely to stay that way, but it’s not the same thing as reliability.
Personally for me Arch on my system has been more stable & faster than both Debian & Fedora…
Apt just loves to break or remove stuff