The bad side of Arch Linux
I posted yesterday that I liked Arch but I called it "not too good". So, Mark Kretschmann posted a comment asking what I didn't like.
It's not too much, but here it goes:
The upgrades sometimes are a bit painful (switching to udev was a bit hard).
The policy of deleting the package documentation is evil. Really.
The startup system is too simplistic. No default order of startup scripts means sometimes it takes trial and error to figure out what goes first. Hal or dbus? hwd?
The package selection (without unsupported) is somewhat skimpy (no perl-net-server? no perl-html-template?) but that's probably my POV because I am a bit server-oriented.
Some basic packages make scary assumptions. For example, if you have a user with UID 89 when you install mysql server, weird things may happen. Same for UID 40 and named.
On the other hand, the good side (at least for an amateur like me) is a bazillion times bigger.