[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
This is a difficult thread to follow, and probably needs to be closed:
http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch/2006-March/008977.html
o+o
|
_______________________________________________
arch mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
