> Michael Surette wrote: >> With Arch, for the OP, >> myself, and obviously others, critical packages needed tweeks after a >> minor upgrade just to work. > This thread has drifted a bit OT - the OP was looking for info on > porting pacman to Slackware, nothing more, so I'm going to assume you're > referring to j l's post above. In which case I have to ask - which > critical packages needed tweaks after minor upgrades? The introduction > of initrd is hardly a minor upgrade, nor is xorg7, and udev changes are > not under the control of Arch devs. > > More generally, it's great that people like yourself are happy to move > from Slack to Arch, but I think it does both a disservice if you expect > things to be the same after you migrate. > > Tom K.'
Hey Tom; I *think* he meant it simply was not as stable as Slackware. And it is not. He *was* replying to someone suggesting that it WAS VERY stable, and especially for a distro.....(blah blah). And it is not a particularly stable distro. (It=arch). (This kind of confusion is often seen when text is repeatedly cut out of the threaded messages. Things take on new and un-intended meanings.) Further, and since we are on the topic: At best I would rate Arch as a once stable distro that is, NOW, about average stability. It certainly is NOT in the league of Debian, Slackware, or even Red Hat for stability. In any event, these are just my observations, so I am keeping this private; i.e. just between you and I. Oh and just so you fully understand; Arch does not have to be as stable as Slackware to be useful or even fun to use. On the other hand the author you are taking to task is merely pointing out that it is a fool's errand (my words, not the authors') to suggest that Arch has stability worth aspiring to. Very best regards; Bob Finch _______________________________________________ arch mailing list [email protected] http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
