If I might ask: Who said such a thing ? (It was not I.)
Very best regards; Bob Finch > You know, this is a very articulate response. I was almost convinced > until I weant back and read: > > "The recent changes to Arch were executed with such ineptitude" > > These words are inflamatory and not hepful. The rest just becomes > noise. > > IMHO > > > ============================================================ > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2006/03/02 Thu PM 04:19:45 EST > To: <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [arch] Can I add pacman to slackware? > >> 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
