Tom K wrote: > [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. > > _______________________________________________ > arch mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch > What Bob said ;-)
With that great package management, I wish Arch was more stable so I could use it in production, perhaps Rubix will be. For now Arch is on my notebook and I'm in no hurry to change it. My wishes notwithstanding, Arch is simply not a server distribution. With Slackware you can run the current branch without hiccups. With Arch you can't. That's just the way it is. I guess our definition of minor upgrade is different as well. In my eyes a major upgrade would require a bumping of the distro version. Otherwise you're just keeping patched and up to date. Just a different point of view I guess. All distros reflect the developer's preferences. Arch is a fine distribution. Still, I would like to see more stability. I've said that now and the developers can either act on it or not. Their choice. Criticism doesn't always have to be bad you know. Mike _______________________________________________ arch mailing list [email protected] http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
