"Arch doesn't offer such a facility as it goes against TheArchWay. SUSE, therefore, is widely regarded as more appropriate for less-experienced users, or those who want a more GUI-driven environment, autoconfiguration and expected functionality out of the box. "
Such an elegant way of saying SUSE IS 4 teh noobz and i use arch kuz i'm hardcore.
Having been there and back again I find myself on FC, because it's stable. I know that I can update the fucking thing whenever, or not even update for a year and it won't fuck up my install. Unlike Arch which if you don't update for 1-3 month's you're guaranteed a fuckup because you missed 2 critical updates and there's no way to get them unless you feel like manually finding the actual packages and installing them.
That page misses an important aspect, Arch sucks for stability, programming, and people who hate typing pacman -Syu every damn day. Arguably stability and programming are finer points for the SUSE distro because, it's got a plethora of development packages which are installable at various versions (yast/zypper is a bit of a bitch about this though), as well as the fact that SUSE handles concurrent versions way better than Arch.
"Fedora has a scheduled release cycle. Arch is a rolling-release system. The Arch design approach is geared more toward lightweight elegance and minimalism rather than automation/autoconfiguration."
I also love this perl of wisdom, no it's not. I can get a minimal FC11 install, or I can install CentOS and get the same damn minimalism and elegance and lightweightness. How do you judge how lightweight a distro is? I can remove every component from fedora and suse. I don't need their gui tools installed, nor do I need their commandline-ncurses tools installed. If Fedora decided to support kmod then it'd have more modular packages than Arch, so what is this mythical lightweightness? Is Gentoo more light weight than Arch? Or Is the opposite true, because Gentoo's ebuild directory can span anywhere from 700mb (generous) to 2 gb.
Here's the bottom line, most OS comparison is FUD. In most distros moving the ease of use up just makes the window of use bigger (a more inclusive user base, ie people who only use the gui or people who only use the cli or a mix).
Also I enjoyed the fact that Arch pretty much says, we break patent law freely because we don't have a backing company who one can get money out of with a lawsuit:
"Fedora famously doesn't attempt to support the MP3 media format due to perceived patent issues. Arch is more lenient in its disposition toward MP3 and other media."
Maybe I'm jaded from all the "ZOMG ARCH LINUX" crap on /r/linux, but Arch isn't as 'teh awesome' as people make it out to be. In fact when you use x64-bit distro all the speed ups (some more than others) that Arch used to tout with i686 packages disappear.