[Oni]

Let's get something straight here, I do not mind Arch. However it doesn't test most of the packages that get added. This inherently makes Arch unstable. It also takes quite a long time to properly configure arch, which is where most people start running into problems. Meaning its not for casual use (as in a Facebook machine). Between rolling releases and the amount of time it takes to compile, configure, and update, several hours have passed. Plus there is no guaranty that something wont break during one of those processes. This makes it terrible for server use.

Arch is great for experienced linux users. It offers some of the best customization of any distro, and with its rolling release you can bet you have the most updated packages (READ: new, untested, bleeding edge). It's not for people just getting into linux. Unless they want to spend several hours staring at a terminal trying to figure out why their kernel is not compiling correctly.

It's not even for casual/experienced users either. "New", "untested", and "bleeding edge" tend to be keywords for things in development still. You don't want to use something like that as your day-to-day operating system unless you are actually willing to put in the time to maintain it. For most users, that's simply unrealistic. I do, however, applaud Arch users. I've used it before and eventually I switched because it took too much time to maintain.