You are not logged in.
People are right that Arch can be very stable - it has been more stable for me than Debian though maybe less so slightly than Fedora. (But that's on three sets of hardware and the comparison is especially unfair to Debian.)
But the OP asked the question because s/he doesn't have time to read the manual page for pacman for a while. And the OP switched to Arch because maintaining Debian was too time-consuming. Given *that*, the OP will not find Arch at all stable unless the OP finds the time to do at least some of the things people are recommending. Yes, those things can greatly reduce the chances of breakage, greatly improve recovery time and greatly decrease the seriousness of breakage. But reading the wiki, the forums, the manual; searching the web, the forums, the wiki; monitoring the news, the mailing lists, the change... that takes time. It especially takes time at first when you are not familiar with the system, the documentation and the available resources.
It is not "negative" to suggest that a user with too little time to keep Debian up to date should not consider Arch. Arch is a great way to learn and can be great fun. But if you have little time, you will not relish the opportunity which breakage offers to learn more about the system and you will not enjoy needing to read a news item, a wiki page and the forums in order to successfully navigate a change to the system.
And not upgrading is definitely not a solution. Frequent upgrades are much easier and smoother than occasional ones. Of course, it is only sensible to postpone an upgrade for a few days if use of your system is critical (deadline, presentation etc.) but if you just generally don't have time to mess around with it, you should choose a distro which does not generally require much messing around with. Arch is not that distro. It is a great distro but it is not that distro.
CLI Paste | How To Ask Questions
Arch Linux | x86_64 | GPT | EFI boot | refind | stub loader | systemd | LVM2 on LUKS
Lenovo x270 | Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-7200U CPU @ 2.50GHz | Intel Wireless 8265/8275 | US keyboard w/ Euro | 512G NVMe INTEL SSDPEKKF512G7L
Offline
Arch isn't that fragile. If you ignore good practice, blindly upgrade, use the laziest unofficial drop-in solutions you can find, do a reinstall whenever there isn't a quick and obvious fix to your issues... you'll still get an up-to-date system that should last you over 6 months, with less headaches than bleeding-edge variants of distros not built for this.
Just postpone reckless things when you absolutely can't afford any breakage and think twice before asking for support - if you didn't take the time to do things properly, it's rude to waste other people's time cleaning up the mess.
However: Arch doesn't put as much effort into patching and configuring things for a nice out-of-the-box experience as Debian does. Keeping things simple and putting the effort into documentation instead makes both tweaking and troubleshooting easier. Once you have things set up to your tastes and smoothed out the rough edges, chances are your system is worth taking care of in a more civilised way.
Something Arch doesn't do very well is updating after long breaks of no maintenance whatsoever - may be a poor choice for spares or other people's machines that you're supposed to keep working.
Offline