Why does Jow Forums hate arch so much?

Unironically .
Any other distro requires tinkering with whatever their specialized configs, package managers, custom repos, etc. are. Arch is more like Slackware in that aspect: it works by default. Of course, Jow Forums doesn't consider it a real distro if it doesn't require at least 10 hours of maintenance per week.

Why people say that arch breaks often, yet it has never broke on me? Was there a moment when arch was very unstable?

It used to have a bit more problems back in the day. Not quite the level Ubuntu did when upgrading across releases, but still more than Slackware.
Also, there's always the part where an update for some individual program breaks compatibility by design. That isn't on Arch, since it's upstream's fault, and only real mitigation would've been not updating (unless the repo maintainers wanted to fork the old version and maintain it themselves).

Gentoo > Arch

Indeed I'm Luke, how did you know? Please donate to me

Unprofessional, bloated, forces systemd on you, aur is shit. It's the goto distro for teenagers that pretend to be hackers. The installation process is so easy that even a brainlet could memorize all the steps and make an install script in 5 minutes, yet they provide no installer because they know that normalfags won't even bother looking under the dress and see arch for what it really is(ubuntu for nerdy kids), so they can keep their facade of distro for hackers.

>for teenagers that pretend to be hackers.
How do you actually pretend that?

>why does Jow Forums hate arch so much?
Arch is hated because it's a fundamentally flawed distribution concept. Under the pretense of total user control, arch lets users pick their own packages-many times as grouped meta packages defeating the system's promise of modularity-and edit config files by hand. Users new to linux are lulled into thinking they're learning the inner workings of the system when in reality they are neatly sandboxed just under the surface of standard conveniences. Blind to this lack of depth, arch users chide distros like ubuntu and debian for being bloated and lacking granular control, oblivious to the blackbox, pacman, which controls the fate of their setup. This is compounded by the fact that arch is on a rolling release with bleeding edge packages from repositories maintained by hobbyists who give little thought to the second order effects of their changes. Arch users would be gamblers, addicted to the rush only pacman -Syu can provide, but for the fact that most don't even realize the potential for disaster. They don't read release notes, errata, or even arch's own website warning them about impending conflicts. They just roll pacman's dice, usually get lucky, and go on believing they are linux power users. Not that you have to do this, or even should, to use linux. This is the inconvenient grunt work stable distros do and arch neets don't know has to be done.

I don't mind it. I just never considered using it.

>It's the goto distro for teenagers that pretend to be hackers.
nah that gentoo. Arch is for casual boomers

>usually get lucky
i like those odds

>installed manjaro on a virtual machine
Manjaro what i read should be very similar to arch
Linux is a fucking mess lol, the Layout is fucking confusing and i honestly dont see the point in switching from Windows 10
I will try open suse, maybe it will be better

It breaks too often for any "critical" workstation to be using it, so unless you consider fixing bugs with your machine as a fun thing, you'll be wasting too much time, and no good developer should prioritise fixing their machine over getting shit done. Time is money, time is experience, time is learning..Time should not be spent fucking with your OS every day.

It's mostly used as a ricing platform to show off your "ability" to rice/fuck around with the system until it looks pretty / follow a "hard" installation. In reality nobody gives a shit.

The entire concept of it is absurd, one of the main purposes of moving from windows or mac to linux is so you have a very consistent experience with packages and updates, to get away from the whole "visiting the website and clicking an unknown package and running it"...Yet arch is LITERALLY all about that, and you end up visiting a website (or checking for packages however) then using some random dude's code on your machine, like wtf. It's worse than windows. At any point in using the AUR you're more vulnerable than you are on windows. Just absurd.

It's basically the meme everyone hates. "I use arch" is the "I'm vegan" or "I smoke weed d00d" of the linux community.

Also for me personally, it adds extra work to just basic actions, where as other popular distros like ubuntu will remove those actions for you, and make things painless.

I spent more time fixing bugs on my coworkers' machines than maintaining my Arch install.