One thing that Arch does well is that it makes you understand the OS and that you have full control over what you'll actually install. I liked that very much. For me, the problem is how poorly some updates were handled.
The knowledge that you have to look at the newspage to avoid system outages only comes to you after you experienced such an outage. After getting mocked in the forums you'll surely learn that lesson.
But even then I had updates that broke my system because dependencies had been broken or the configurations weren't properly updated. And at that point you need to be an expert at every single software component you use. That is unfeasible for me.
Have a look at unthorty's reply. I would say that at least some of those errors could've happened to an experienced user.
I only agree about the "knowledge of newspage" part because I have seen many others go through said ordeal.
I distinctly remember not having looked at the newspage before I began the systemd-move update. My system wasn't rendered unbootable; I monitored the update process, and was clearly notified of the things that needed to be done in the update output. Same with the /usr/bin-move.
In unthorty's enumeration, yes, all those errors could've happened to an experienced user, but the three points other than linux-ck seem like bugs due to lack of testing. In other words, perils of bleeding-edge. And linux-ck is a third-party kernel.
The knowledge that you have to look at the newspage to avoid system outages only comes to you after you experienced such an outage. After getting mocked in the forums you'll surely learn that lesson.
But even then I had updates that broke my system because dependencies had been broken or the configurations weren't properly updated. And at that point you need to be an expert at every single software component you use. That is unfeasible for me.
Have a look at unthorty's reply. I would say that at least some of those errors could've happened to an experienced user.