Interesting that you think arch is more stable. Arch blew up on my system even though I did constant updates to not fall behind too far. I switched to nixOS it it also broke because of a incompatibility between home manager and the latest version of i3-bar. The software expect toml keys in a specific order, the configuration writer can‘t enforce this. So all in all I managed to break a lot of systems with updates. :(

I don't intend to become one of those Arch-fanatics who victim blames everyone, but I do have to say that this is the one system that actually does not fail on me because of peculiarities between updates. Takes some time, but it is extremely stable if you don't tinker with it too much.

I do also have to say that using i3 makes stuff easier, because it is relatively minimalistic and therefore little changes at all. Perhaps you can try Debian? I have heard very good things about its stability.

What is the most stable system you tried where there are many packages available?

Is that Debian? I want it desktop-focused actually and that works great with multi-monitor and proprietary drivers from NVidia.

Currently on Ubuntu but I see bugs here and there and a software update messed up my desktop a few weeks ago. It is for work. I do NOT want to waste time with unstable stuff.

I would say Linux Mint, very stable, good attention to detail from the devs. I like MATE, have been running this for years now. It's upgradable, lots of packages, no snaps by default.

That still would have to be Arch. From what I have heard elsewhere, I would suggest Debian for its extreme stability. You won't get the newest stuff, but Debian is really focused on making sure nothing breaks between updates.