I second that. Unlike some other comments here, I personally have been driven to Arch for its rolling-release nature and not some problems over a window manager

I second that. Unlike some other comments here, I personally have been driven to Arch for its rolling-release nature and not some problems over a window manager or ACPI: I started with Ubuntu, which technically seems to do fine; however I always ended up wanting/needing to use some current version of some dev software (up to date compiler or a newer Qt Creator for cross compilation for example). To get those newer versions, I found myself having to rely on PPAs providing them as well as the necessary libraries, which ended up destroying a dist upgrade half a year later. That happened to me at least 2 times. After that, I tried Fedora and had various problems from the start (maybe that's not the case anymore). Then I ended up with Arch, and have never looked back. So, if you want to use up to date software, I'd recommend you to strongly consider a rolling release distro. The occational fixing of a single package is worth it over the loss of multiple days/much hair reconstructing your old dev environment on the next distro version any day of the week.