Some people seem to prefer systems that break often for some reason.
Had a roommate that ran arch (and wouldn’t shut up about it of course) —- he would update the system very often and very often it wouldn’t boot for some reason. One time he had to update a system that hadn’t been updated in a while and he opted for just reinstalling it.
It doesn’t really make sense to me, but I guess some people like it that way?
Please don't quantise all Linux users with something that's not gnome|kde or mainstream into "likes stuff that breaks" - both the author and I run Debian, this is the least breaky distro of all time, less than ubuntu.
Linux is literally about user choice, everything but the kernel is up for grabs, and even the kernel if that's what you want.
One also shouldn't form an impression of arch (or any other distro) from the experience of one user. I've had this arch install for over 10 years and don't remember having any issues like that; while hearing plenty of people having issues doing major version updates on more "stable" distros.
Arch specifically attracts people who want to learn how things are put together and mess with their system, which are also the kind of people most likely to break things.
Very well; since you've linked a site claiming that the Linux kernel (an open source kernel used in everything from embedded routers to supercomputers, from Android to Debian) isn't "about" choice, we can rephrase.
Had a roommate that ran arch (and wouldn’t shut up about it of course) —- he would update the system very often and very often it wouldn’t boot for some reason. One time he had to update a system that hadn’t been updated in a while and he opted for just reinstalling it.
It doesn’t really make sense to me, but I guess some people like it that way?