Linux

I’ve heard it has poor long term stability.

Relatively speaking, sure. But I'd argue this is by design. Basically, every 'modern' distro is trying to solve the problem that come with updates on an 'open'/'free' operating system. The solution they come up with essentially dictates a huge part of the identity of the distro. As I've noted elsewhere, these include the following:

• Some choose to outright freeze packages and only come with security updates
• Others have (almost) excessive testing to prevent breakage
• Yet others employ rollbacks to ensure that the (eventual/inevitable) breakage can easily be deflected
• Finally, there are distros that fall on a spectrum in regards to their more radical state management in hopes of minimizing breakage
• (Though, I'm sure I've forgotten some other methods...)
• And, of course, we find combinations of the above employed on the very same distro/system

And, of course, we shouldn't forget to mention Arch's approach; lay the responsibility on the user 😅. So, Arch 'breaking'/'borking' after an update is a user error. Which other distro can tout such an impressive entry in their documentation for system maintenance?

To be fair, this makes total sense. The user can basically build their system from scratch. So..., why wouldn't they be capable to come up with their solution to the above problem? Besides, the ArchWiki continues to be a guiding light whatever solution they'd like to adopt: be it 'freezing' the kernel, or using better tested software, perhaps setting up Snapper for rollbacks etc...

Is there a distro that’s like Arch for installation but more stable?

Gentoo