quoth the Daniel Schledermann (TypoConsult A/S): > - Another alternative is Arch Linux, which also has binary packages, but > also a portage-like build system. This IS linux, but uses BSD-init, and > does not seem as mature as Gentoo or FreeBSD. > > /Daniel
I disagree that Arch is a good choice for a server. I do run an Arch box (not production) but I think that pacman updates are way less stable than portage. Seems everytime I go to do an update, once per month or so, they have changed something drastically that needs manual intervention to facilitate the upgrade. The most recent was a change to udev that required you to either use Arch's specially patched canned kernel or update to vanilla 2.6.16, neither of which I really wanted to do. My arch box has way more downtime than any of my Gentoo boxes, and I run Gentoo on three different platforms. Just an opinion here, but I don't think Arch is a good choice for a server, production or otherwise. Makes a real nice bleeding edge desktop though... -d -- darren kirby :: Part of the problem since 1976 :: http://badcomputer.org "...the number of UNIX installations has grown to 10, with more expected..." - Dennis Ritchie and Ken Thompson, June 1972
pgpf9nz8WPrKF.pgp
Description: PGP signature
