Same here, I ran Arch on Hetzner Cloud and find it superior in many subtle ways.
Rolling updates mean that I have to carefully choose what to install in order to keep the maintenance costs down. This has the side effect of reducing the attack surface.
I also manually review updates, which means that I keep up with the news in OS land.
I have to reboot once in a while because of updates, which means that I test resilience of my infrastructure.
By comparison, RedHat stack at work feels creepled and ancient.
You need a RedHat account (read: subscription) for pretty much everything, even the most basic documentation or downloads and yet my bugs in their bugzilla linger for months with none even trying to reproduce, let alone fix.
Every single time I tried using arch, I had nothing but problems with updates. I wasted a lot of time hunting down documentation to things that broke, like mailing, logging, the DE, bluetooth, you name it. Changes that get taken care of by default in other distros. I had some very nasty surprises while using arch. My stable Ubuntu or Debian installs didn't even have a single glitch in the exact same timeframe.
Rolling updates mean that I have to carefully choose what to install in order to keep the maintenance costs down. This has the side effect of reducing the attack surface.
I also manually review updates, which means that I keep up with the news in OS land.
I have to reboot once in a while because of updates, which means that I test resilience of my infrastructure.
By comparison, RedHat stack at work feels creepled and ancient.
You need a RedHat account (read: subscription) for pretty much everything, even the most basic documentation or downloads and yet my bugs in their bugzilla linger for months with none even trying to reproduce, let alone fix.