Same. I've switched to Arch from Ubuntu as my main os almost 10 years ago and in all that time I've had a problem that goes beyond inconvenience level maybe twice. In fact Ubuntu broke more often.
I broke my install by updating it, I get that if you perfectly understand what's going on then it has no bugs but that's really not my experience. A lot of the time something will break and it's easy to say "I should've known it was this so it's my fault" but really if you didn't expect it to work a certain way and it breaks it's not a super stable system.
My Ubuntu broke literally every time I did a version upgrade. It's probably better now, but I'm not going back.
The last system that straight up broke for me was a default installation of Debian Stable, and that wasn't long ago.
I understand Arch isn't easy to use or maintain.
But in my opinion, if you use something wrong and it breaks, that doesn't mean it's unstable. And if you update Arch by simply hitting "pacman -Syu" every day, you're doing it wrong.
But if lots of people use it wrong and break it then maybe it's too obtuse. I broke one of my applications by upgrading packages. The solution? Install the package again, I thought the package manager would take care of stuff like that but if it's meant to be me then I think it's a bad system.
I always find it kinda weird when people criticize free software.
Like, the developers make something, give it to you for free, pay for server space so you can download it for free, and then you say "it sucks".
OK, just don't use it then.
Criticism and hate are two different things. I hate windows, I can criticise parts of arch Linux which is so far my favourite OS. Me not liking part of it or the way it works doesn't mean there's another version that is completely perfect and I should just shut up and use that. Also no it doesn't suck, but updating my system and having it break is a problem I should not be having.