No snark: I understand that's largely a result of Arch deliberately pushing decisions down to users rather than deciding for you, appreciate that it's a deliberate decision, and am _very_ glad it exists.
I guess if "Linux is about choice" (it's not) then Arch is very Linux-like.
This is interesting because it hasn't been my experience at all. IIRC in the last 3 years I only had to fix something after an update once, and that was only because of my own stupidity.
I actually find Arch a lot more stable now than when I was using Ubuntu many many years ago, where something would always break after upgrading to a new version. (But maybe Ubuntu's better in this regards nowadays; I don't know.)
The parent poster was definitely right that Arch pushes all of the decisions down to the users rather than deciding for you, so I suppose how much it breaks depends on how good your decisions are and how much of a Linux expert you are. I could fix virtually any broken Linux system while blindfolded, so I know how to set it up so that it never breaks and doesn't require any maintenance. This probably explains the difference in our experiences.
Maybe the original authors meant Unix-like?