On Fri, 22 May 2009 07:40:28 -0300, Jorge Morais wrote: > > maybe you should just run a ~arch system. > I want a reliable system. Isn't ~arch quite less reliable than arch ?
Not in my experience. ~arch only means the builds are in testing, the software is as reliable as upstream makes it. You may hit the occasional problem when updating, but once the software is installed it will be as reliable as on any other distro. > (Also, newer software versions are often more bloated). That's a highly subjective view, and quite irrelevant. New versions can be about adding features, or they can be about bug-fixing and optimising existing features. > > It's been said many times that a mixed system is a potential source > > of trouble. > I didn't hear it. It comes up on this list frequently when discussions about problems caused by mixing arch and ~arch are mentioned. I run mainly ~arch but a couple of computers run arch plus some packages in package.keywords. I can honestly say that the pure ~arch machines are just as reliable. The reason I run the arch boxes is that stability is important for them; not in the reliability sense (that's important everywhere) but in reducing the number of updates needed on each box. -- Neil Bothwick Whats the difference between a magician and a brothel? One has a cunning array of stunts,
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
