> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>> 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 >> >> > Thanks for your wise words, Bob. I am genuinely curious to know which > apps he had a problem with after the aforementioned "minor upgrade", and > I do know that Arch is not as stable as Slackware - as does anyone who > is even remotely familiar with these fine distros. Every distro out > there has its strengths and weaknesses, and the author seems to me to be > suggesting that Arch should aspire to Slackware's stability, to be > achieved by that old chestnut, the Arch stable branch. My second point > was to observe the glaringly obvious fact that Arch is different from > Slackware, and should be appreciated for its unique strengths, not > criticised for lacking in areas where the author's former distro excels. > > Tom K. >
Okey Dokey then. We are in agreement....which is a fine thing !! Very best regards; Bob Finch P.S.... I am trying Rubix on a test disk at work. In fact I am using it now. Not surprisingly it feels like a cross between slackware and arch. The install for someone conversant with arch installs would be a snap IMHO. On small bug I found in the grub install, and it was an odd one. Maybe I will try to meld lilo into it instead !! TTFN _______________________________________________ arch mailing list [email protected] http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
