Arch Linux is not my daily driver, but I still use it.

Arch Linux provides rapid updates for software packages and allows deep customization of each component of Linux. The documentation on Arch's wiki is praised for its clarity as a resource to understand the technical aspects of Linux. However, Arch's fast updates may lead to bugs, requiring more manual operations, and sometimes a more stable base system might be preferable. There are zones where no ad applies: Below the first paragraph! Arch Linux has a fanbase mainly targeting Linux users. I don't use it as my main distribution, but its importance is indispensable for my work. Fast software updates in Arch Linux, including HTG, to which I am grateful. When new software packages are released, maintainers add them to the Arch repository within days. 'When I hear about new versions of Linux applications and want to try them, I start Arch and update packages using pacman.' Command to update the entire system using a package manager I then check if I can install it with pacman. Arch Linux's quick pace is consistent with Linux itself. It is known as an output-oriented distribution but feels like the best documentation in its unique Arch Wiki, where authors explain stories clearly (self-improvement: I made minor edits to how VirtualBox runs before joining HTG). I find it a good resource for understanding technical points of Linux. It seems I'm not alone with this view. HTG lists Arch Wiki as an essential website for all types of Linux users. Arch Linux helps me by having developers who prefer to make fewer changes to upstream software. Upstream software refers to projects created by third parties and adopted by distribution developers. Many Linux distributions are composed of many upstream software providers. When trying out new programs, Arch is a good starting point because it installs as if developed by the developer, so there's no need to compile the code yourself. You can evaluate its behavior. HTG viewers use various Linux distributions, and I want to ensure that whatever actions or features I explain work similarly or almost identically across all systems. Why isn't Arch my daily driver? 'Maybe we wonder why we don't use Arch as our daily driver if it's so great. There are several reasons for this.' Excessive manual management One of the drawbacks is the need for more manual management compared to other distributions. GRUB changed its method a few years ago and encourages users to rerun GRUB every time a new version is installed. I always monitored pacman, rerunning GRUB if it was executed, but forgetting could result in an unbootable system. To solve this, I eventually created a shell script. Writing scripts for management is more work than Some People find enjoyable, but it's not for me. Arch's rapid pace may introduce bugs Another drawback of Arch's strength, its rolling release model, is that it allows access to new software, which is great but comes with risks. New software can introduce new bugs, but some bugs are fixed faster as well. 'Stability preferred' This is the final point. I prefer a stable base system for daily work, while Arch is fun to play with but requires a reliable environment. For these reasons, Arch is good to visit but not to live in.