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, 09:41 AM
Stefan Wilkens
 
Default People that depend on Arch, etc deserve to die? - Allan McRae - Clarifications

2011/12/23 Jonathan Vasquez <jvasquez1011@gmail.com>:
> 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

Surely Allan intended to point out the idiocy of the idea that lives
may depend on the key signing implementation for pacman.

Somebody saying, quote:
"When you work with any area of cryptography, remember that lives and
certainly livelihoods can literally depend on your keystrokes (even
though you may not want or expect them to), so get behind your work or
don't do it. This isn't just a toy, free though it may be."

has lost perspective.
 
Old 12-23-2011, 09:41 AM
Jonathan Vasquez
 
Default People that depend on Arch, etc deserve to die? - Allan McRae - Clarifications

Thanks for the response. Do you consider Arch a production system or more
of a hobby project? Meaning more like a side system and not a main one.
On Dec 23, 2011 5:39 AM, "Allan McRae" <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:

> On 23/12/11 20:32, Jonathan Vasquez wrote:
> > 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?
> >
>
> I was saying, I would not stake my life on the stability of Arch Linux.
> It has been know to get broken and not just by bad packaging. Upstream
> "stable" releases are not necessarily stable. e.g. bash-4.2.005 was a
> minor upstream bug fix that resulted in Arch not booting.
>
> Allan
>
>
 
Old 12-23-2011, 09:48 AM
Allan McRae
 
Default People that depend on Arch, etc deserve to die? - Allan McRae - Clarifications

On 23/12/11 20:32, Jonathan Vasquez wrote:
> 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?
>

I was saying, I would not stake my life on the stability of Arch Linux.
It has been know to get broken and not just by bad packaging. Upstream
"stable" releases are not necessarily stable. e.g. bash-4.2.005 was a
minor upstream bug fix that resulted in Arch not booting.

Allan
 
Old 12-23-2011, 09:57 AM
Allan McRae
 
Default People that depend on Arch, etc deserve to die? - Allan McRae - Clarifications

On 23/12/11 20:41, Jonathan Vasquez wrote:
> Thanks for the response. Do you consider Arch a production system or more
> of a hobby project? Meaning more like a side system and not a main one.

I have used it in production. But then again, I have quite a good idea
of what is happening in Arch Land and can deal with any issues.

It all depends on what the adminstrator is comfortable with supporting.

Allan
 
Old 12-23-2011, 11:45 AM
"Alessio 'Blaster' Biancalana"
 
Default People that depend on Arch, etc deserve to die? - Allan McRae - Clarifications

I simply believe that a man should know how Linux works, and not how Arch
Linux or Debian or Fedora works.
Basic approach, not distro-oriented approach. So I agree with Allan, you
can't be depending on a single distro, you need to know how to deal with
every single Linux system (major distros at least) on earth, and Pacman is
only a package manager

Salud,
Ale
 
Old 12-23-2011, 05:57 PM
Jonathan Vasquez
 
Default People that depend on Arch, etc deserve to die? - Allan McRae - Clarifications

I agree. After a person uses Linux for a while, they start to notice that
most distros are pretty identical. The only things that change are package
names, package manager, packages used, directory structure (where do we
install packages, man files, etc), and the philosophy/goals of that distro.

-Jon
On Dec 23, 2011 5:47 AM, "Allan McRae" <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:

> On 23/12/11 20:41, Jonathan Vasquez wrote:
> > Thanks for the response. Do you consider Arch a production system or more
> > of a hobby project? Meaning more like a side system and not a main one.
>
> I have used it in production. But then again, I have quite a good idea
> of what is happening in Arch Land and can deal with any issues.
>
> It all depends on what the adminstrator is comfortable with supporting.
>
> Allan
>
 
Old 12-23-2011, 07:48 PM
Loui Chang
 
Default People that depend on Arch, etc deserve to die? - Allan McRae - Clarifications

On Fri 23 Dec 2011 10:42 +0000, Paul Gideon Dann wrote:
> 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.

QA like when Debian broke SSL? I would rather trust Arch Linux for
critical applications.
 
Old 12-23-2011, 07:52 PM
Jonathan Vasquez
 
Default People that depend on Arch, etc deserve to die? - Allan McRae - Clarifications

Let's not forget Loui, We are all human and make mistakes. A QA process is
definitely a good thing.

On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Loui Chang <louipc.ist@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri 23 Dec 2011 10:42 +0000, Paul Gideon Dann wrote:
> > 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.
>
> QA like when Debian broke SSL? I would rather trust Arch Linux for
> critical applications.
>
>


--
Jonathan Vasquez
 
Old 12-23-2011, 08:11 PM
"Alessio 'Blaster' Biancalana"
 
Default People that depend on Arch, etc deserve to die? - Allan McRae - Clarifications

However, I think Arch is a good distro for every purpose, from desktop to
server, because of it's usercentricness.
If you break something, you can fall back and most of the times, if you
broke a system component, it's your fault.
There's [testing] and maintainers don't push unattended dangerous upgrades
to extra and core.

But let's focus on topic, we are discussing about stability :P

Salud,
Ale
 
Old 12-23-2011, 08:30 PM
Heiko Baums
 
Default People that depend on Arch, etc deserve to die? - Allan McRae - Clarifications

Am Fri, 23 Dec 2011 15:52:13 -0500
schrieb Jonathan Vasquez <jvasquez1011@gmail.com>:

> Let's not forget Loui, We are all human and make mistakes. A QA
> process is definitely a good thing.

Is QA the thing what makes Debian so bleeding edge? *SCNR*

I haven't had any stability issues with Arch Linux, yet, neither with
Gentoo. And in these very rare cases in which something unforeseen
happens with an update it can easily be fixed by either downgrading or
waiting a few days for an update which fixes the issue. Or it can be
fixed or worked around in other ways.

So Arch Linux is absolutely stable and bleeding edge in my opinion and
can indeed be used in a production environment.

And, btw., isn't the testing done by the devs in the git tree and in
[testing] not QA?

Heiko
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22 AM.

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