The arch wiki tends to be a good resource, but I would argue that the arch wiki is not really the same thing as the arch distribution. It’s definitely part of the ecosystem and relevant to user experience with a distribution… but I think my interpretation of “best / worst distro” is mostly in terms of “when you know how to use it, how is it?” If documentation is a factor NixOS is terrible, if documentation is not a concern then it’s amazing haha.

I’ve personally been kind of disappointed with my experience with Arch, and I don’t think the Arch wiki redeems it in the sense that no matter how good the wiki is I still don’t really want to use Arch. My problems with Arch are largely just related to the upgrade processes, which I haven’t had great experiences with. In my experience it’s painful to roll back, pin / install specific versions of packages, and the update process with pacman is just rough in my experience (e.g., the keyring update issue, or the fact that it deletes all kernel modules for the running kernel on an update). My impression is that some of this stems from the philosophy of KISS (e.g., why have rollbacks for system updates when you could use snapshots for that), which I think is fair in some cases, but less fair for others (like the keyring update). Ultimately I feel like these choices in Arch just make it not the distro for me. I’ve been bitten too many times by it, and I feel like other distros do a better job of managing packages and at maintaining a stable and updatable system. I’ve had far better experiences on Gentoo and NixOS in these respects. At the end of the day if you like Arch that’s fine by me — I get the appeal as it’s kind of the main rolling release distro that provides binaries, but it didn’t scratch the itch for me unfortunately!