| 1 |
quoth the Daniel Schledermann (TypoConsult A/S): |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> - Another alternative is Arch Linux, which also has binary packages, but |
| 4 |
> also a portage-like build system. This IS linux, but uses BSD-init, and |
| 5 |
> does not seem as mature as Gentoo or FreeBSD. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> /Daniel |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
I disagree that Arch is a good choice for a server. I do run an Arch box (not |
| 10 |
production) but I think that pacman updates are way less stable than portage. |
| 11 |
Seems everytime I go to do an update, once per month or so, they have changed |
| 12 |
something drastically that needs manual intervention to facilitate the |
| 13 |
upgrade. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
The most recent was a change to udev that required you to either use Arch's |
| 16 |
specially patched canned kernel or update to vanilla 2.6.16, neither of which |
| 17 |
I really wanted to do. My arch box has way more downtime than any of my |
| 18 |
Gentoo boxes, and I run Gentoo on three different platforms. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Just an opinion here, but I don't think Arch is a good choice for a server, |
| 21 |
production or otherwise. Makes a real nice bleeding edge desktop though... |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-d |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
darren kirby :: Part of the problem since 1976 :: http://badcomputer.org |
| 27 |
"...the number of UNIX installations has grown to 10, with more expected..." |
| 28 |
- Dennis Ritchie and Ken Thompson, June 1972 |
Archives