Posted 20 May 2013 - 13:20
Arch doesn't really have release cycles, and its always been a self-proclaimed cutting edge distros. Arch gets the latest upstream packages into testing very quickly after release, and they go into the stable repos not long after that if no major issues are reported. When using arch you will run into upstream bugs and regressions, but on the other hand you also get bug fixes faster too.
most of the time I don't really find arch particularly more "unstable" or "buggy" at any given time than other distros, the difference is that with more stable distros (such as debian stable) you know what the bugs are and you are unlikely going to get introduced to new bugs (and since the software has been tested for so long there generally isn't any massive bugs), but it can also be likely that the bugs you began with will go unfixed for a long time. With arch the bugs/stability is more in flux, the bugs you initially run into may be fixed very quickly, but later on down the line new bugs can be introduced because its constantly being updated with very recent upstream software.
From what I've seen of n_K's posts, I would say that arch is not really what he is looking for in a distro. You should ask yourself what you want in a distro, and evaluate what distro you use based on that.