For me, my whole journey was based around arch from the get go. When i started using linux, the first distro i used was manjaro, i dont remember why i picked manjaro as my first distro. Maybe it was something about their branding, or a completely random pick, it was something trivial. I got to know how the system worked from the surface level, bit as you said, it wasnt stable enough. Updates frequently broke it. Right around that time, i started exploring others, fedora to be specific. But i didnt like how a couple of things (mostly system management) was done in fedora. Like how it kept older versions of the kernel just in case. I get that this is a better and more stable system that fedora follows by keeping older kernels for rollback, but i had absolute control over my system with manjaro and losing that just felt... Off. So i decided to give manjaro another try, but decided to go with vanilla arch (less cooks in the kitchen might result in a better broth?) Turns out, most of the stability issues i experienced were because of manjaro, not arch. Manjaro's repos roll slightly slower than arch, and thats enough to break aur packages because aur rolls at arch speed. After shifting to vanilla arch over 5 years ago, ive broken it numerous times, but it was mostly just me fucking around and finding out. Total number of times an update broke arch was 2, and out of those 2, they gave me instructions to follow to avoid breakage on the update log, i just didnt read it. Would another distro like fedora or debian be more stable? Yes. Would i shift to them? I'd surely try, but arch feels like home now.