( Full disclosure: I've been using Arch for about 7 years now and I adore it :P )
I think you have some valid points but wanted to address some of your negative points: 1. Software versions: I have not confirmed it but I'm guessing Arch update packages when they are new. In general, my personal feelings towards this is "Good". If I use KDE, for example, I trust that when KDE puts out a version, it's good enough to use.
About the only time packages should spend in testing is to confirm they work within the distribution specific environment which thankfully in Arch's case, isn't really that custom, so it shouldn't take long. I don't think it's the distribution's job to protect me from unstable, buggy or flawed official "stable" packages.
2. Configuration files: Handling of modified configuration files is probably a nice thing but I personally don't mind a quick grep of pacman.log to see what's new and usually appreciate the vimdiff allowing me to see what's changed. I kind of see these diffs as changelogs :P
A few times when a (usually boolean) default has changed, I've been lucky to be able to pick it up via this process and modify my configuration choices accordingly.
3. Multiple repositories: I think your comparison of AUR and unofficial repositories is inaccurate. Arch does have MANY unofficial user repositories that offer the exact same service, reliability and flaws as other distributions' community offerings ( see https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Unofficial_User_Repositories ).
I personally have one of my own for all my contributed AUR packages and if you trust me, are free to use it. I generally discourage the use of these repositories, and the AUR automated tools, as I believe, in general, you should build packages yourself to ensure that it's trustworthy. If I were to use another distribution, I wouldn't use their user repositories either.
Really, the AUR could be seen as something ADDITIONAL to user repositories - sort of a more succinct "blog post" of "how to build and install XYZ on Ubuntu".
4. I agree - there should be an easier way to address bugs. If I want to report a bug I generally get the latest version, build it, and submit the report to upstream so I've not seen what you describe of other distributions but it sounds like a good idea. In fact, Arch has less excuse than others really. As packages are usually more current, the bug reports would be more useful to upstream that those from more conservative distributions like Ubuntu etc.
Oh, and finally, one of your strengths I see as a weakness: from my experience, this systemd is needlessly complicated and confusing. I don't think it follows the Arch way at all, and I don't care about my boot time being 10 seconds instead of 45 seconds. I considered the older method far superior. I guess no distribution's perfect for everyone :)
Interesting read
( Full disclosure: I've been using Arch for about 7 years now and I adore it :P )
I think you have some valid points but wanted to address some of your negative points:
1. Software versions: I have not confirmed it but I'm guessing Arch update packages when they are new. In general, my personal feelings towards this is "Good". If I use KDE, for example, I trust that when KDE puts out a version, it's good enough to use.
About the only time packages should spend in testing is to confirm they work within the distribution specific environment which thankfully in Arch's case, isn't really that custom, so it shouldn't take long. I don't think it's the distribution's job to protect me from unstable, buggy or flawed official "stable" packages.
2. Configuration files: Handling of modified configuration files is probably a nice thing but I personally don't mind a quick grep of pacman.log to see what's new and usually appreciate the vimdiff allowing me to see what's changed. I kind of see these diffs as changelogs :P
A few times when a (usually boolean) default has changed, I've been lucky to be able to pick it up via this process and modify my configuration choices accordingly.
3. Multiple repositories: I think your comparison of AUR and unofficial repositories is inaccurate. Arch does have MANY unofficial user repositories that offer the exact same service, reliability and flaws as other distributions' community offerings ( see https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Unofficial_User_Repositories ).
I personally have one of my own for all my contributed AUR packages and if you trust me, are free to use it. I generally discourage the use of these repositories, and the AUR automated tools, as I believe, in general, you should build packages yourself to ensure that it's trustworthy. If I were to use another distribution, I wouldn't use their user repositories either.
Really, the AUR could be seen as something ADDITIONAL to user repositories - sort of a more succinct "blog post" of "how to build and install XYZ on Ubuntu".
4. I agree - there should be an easier way to address bugs. If I want to report a bug I generally get the latest version, build it, and submit the report to upstream so I've not seen what you describe of other distributions but it sounds like a good idea. In fact, Arch has less excuse than others really. As packages are usually more current, the bug reports would be more useful to upstream that those from more conservative distributions like Ubuntu etc.
Oh, and finally, one of your strengths I see as a weakness: from my experience, this systemd is needlessly complicated and confusing. I don't think it follows the Arch way at all, and I don't care about my boot time being 10 seconds instead of 45 seconds. I considered the older method far superior. I guess no distribution's perfect for everyone :)