FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > ArchLinux > ArchLinux General Discussion

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 12-23-2011, 09:32 AM
Jonathan Vasquez
 
Default People that depend on Arch, etc deserve to die? - Allan McRae - Clarifications

Hello everyone,

I was reading the package signing discussion that was going on over at the
[pacman-dev] mailing list
http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2011-February/012483.html

and Allan said the following:

"I think I know every distribution using pacman as a package manager and

(unless there is an enterprise level distro I am missing) if peoples
lives depend on one of these distros, then I am sorry to say it but in
my opinion they are stupid and deserve to die."


I wanted to know what was he trying to say? Is he saying that Arch and
other Arch-like distros aren't serious distros that aren't meant for
production? I mean I understand that Arch is rolling release and all
that, but it's packages are marked stable by their corresponding
upstreams.

What are your opinions about this?


--
Jonathan Vasquez
 
Old 12-23-2011, 09:42 AM
Paul Gideon Dann
 
Default People that depend on Arch, etc deserve to die? - Allan McRae - Clarifications

On Friday 23 Dec 2011 05:32:25 Jonathan Vasquez wrote:
> I wanted to know what was he trying to say? Is he saying that Arch and
> other Arch-like distros aren't serious distros that aren't meant for
> production? I mean I understand that Arch is rolling release and all
> that, but it's packages are marked stable by their corresponding
> upstreams.

I think the point is that it can be dangerous to use ArchLinux for critical
applications, because there are occasional breakages during updates. That's
simply because Arch doesn't have a development cycle including a QA phase.
Distributions such as Debian can make certain guarantees about the stability
of their software, because they only use older and thoroughly-tested software
by default.

However, I believe ArchLinux is a perfectly sensible choice for critical
production environments, so long as appropriate measures are taken. For
instance, there should be a failover server, or in a cluster configuration an
Arch box should be removed from the cluster for updating, and tested before
being reintegrated. It's just about being sensible.

Arch is awesome for servers, though. It's light and easy to maintain. It's a
lot more hands-on for more of the time than more "stable" distros, but doesn't
have the pain of upgrades. I think it that balances it out.

Paul
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org