[thom]

I heard great things about AUR when moving to Arch but honestly I've been unimpressed. A lot of stuff is already exists in official repos for other distributions, and I don't actually care about bleeding edge versions, just ease of install. And most of the time in my experience, AUR packages aren't very recent, or aren't configured how I'd like.

That said, you can just customise the PKGBUILD yourself, and even then it's no real stress to build from source yourself. Even if you then stabbed yourself in the eye with a pencil, it'd still be a better system than on MacOS or on Windows.

[away_throw]

The problem I find with Arch Linux, and this really only has started happening recently, is that for some reason Arch loves to break stuff. My most unstable distribution had to do with Arch. I find that distros like Void and Alpine Linux offer more robust rolling release systems.

[bscphil]

What in particular has broken for you? I've had the same Arch install for almost 6 years now, with no breakage at all. (Other than once or twice when I decided to reconfigure something and screwed it up. Always recoverable though, without a reinstall.)

[techntoke]

I personally find that Alpine offers the least robust, because it doesn't even have a package mirror, so once a package gets updated (especially in Edge), then you can no longer download the old package, unless you build and sign it yourself. Arch has been incredibly stable for me, even more so than Ubuntu or Debian.

[Rotareti]

> The problem I find with Arch Linux, and this really only has started happening recently, is that for some reason Arch loves to break stuff.

Then I must be lucky. I've been using arch on my dev machine without notable breakages for about 2 years.