[clappski]

The mistake is that you did a system update when you wanted to use the computer. Not implying that system updates should be a dangerous thing to do, but just something learnt from experience - I’ve had similar issues, especially with Nvidea drivers and kernel versions getting updated at the same time. The take away is keep the updates to when you have an hour to debug or get comfortable rolling back updates.

[agoodusername63]

So just like windows, don’t update it

Year of the Linux desktop for sure

[smrq]

I mean, you get what you signed up for. If you wanted total stability and infrequent updates then why would you use Arch? (If the answer is "I didn't know what I signed up for" then that's fair. Simply understanding the practical differences between distros is a huge hurdle.)

[drysart]

That's absurd. The system should be able to update itself without fear that it's going to break anything. The user should not be expected to have to set aside time to babysit an update.

Windows isn't perfect in this respect by any means, but it sure seems like it handles updates a lot better than the distros that have been mentioned in this thread; in that Windows at least takes steps to examine your hardware first and to not apply updates where it's known something has fallen out of support.

Windows also, apparently unlike these mentioned distros, maintains a Last Known Good configuration so if an update does start causing failures, it can automatically roll itself back (or, at worst, can manually be rolled back). There are some distros that do similar, particularly immutable distros; but honestly this sort of thing should be table stakes to the point that if a distro doesn't do it, it should be laughed out of the room.

There is absolutely no acceptable excuse for any operating system to break itself in an update.