[Dyme]

Then you clearly never tried to run a server. However I didn't say arch was unusable, but compared to Debian it is not as stable or as reliable. I would never use Arch unless I wanted bleeding edge features. For a casual use or server use, you want features that you know will work.

However I didn't say arch was unusable

It's nice, if you want an unstable system.

Lol?

Then you clearly never tried to run a server.

Because for some reason arch in incapable of running services without having stability issues? Can you provide some examples?

For a casual use or server use, you want features that you know will work.

Once again, why doesn't arch work? What types of errors/problems have you encountered that lead you to believe that arch is an unstable system? Just the fact that it uses the most up-to-date software? Until you answer these questions, you're kind of just repeating yourself without providing any examples or evidence to support your claims.

Also, I would stop using the word "casual" as I'm not sure you know what it means. Just in case:

If your talking about using a system that unstable, the best way to use it would be for casual use, as it's generally unimportant compared to the other ways the distribution could be used (I.E. a business server).