| 1 |
darren kirby wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
>quoth the Daniel Schledermann (TypoConsult A/S): |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
>>- Another alternative is Arch Linux, which also has binary packages, but |
| 8 |
>>also a portage-like build system. This IS linux, but uses BSD-init, and |
| 9 |
>>does not seem as mature as Gentoo or FreeBSD. |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>>/Daniel |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
>I disagree that Arch is a good choice for a server. I do run an Arch box (not |
| 16 |
>production) but I think that pacman updates are way less stable than portage. |
| 17 |
>Seems everytime I go to do an update, once per month or so, they have changed |
| 18 |
>something drastically that needs manual intervention to facilitate the |
| 19 |
>upgrade. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
Good with some clarification. Like I wrote, it does not seem very |
| 23 |
mature, but it is interesting alternative that has some properties in |
| 24 |
common with Gentoo. Judging from their package names and versions, they |
| 25 |
will have to change a lot, before they can be stable in the ports og |
| 26 |
portage sense. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
>The most recent was a change to udev that required you to either use Arch's |
| 29 |
>specially patched canned kernel or update to vanilla 2.6.16, neither of which |
| 30 |
>I really wanted to do. My arch box has way more downtime than any of my |
| 31 |
>Gentoo boxes, and I run Gentoo on three different platforms. |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
>Just an opinion here, but I don't think Arch is a good choice for a server, |
| 34 |
>production or otherwise. Makes a real nice bleeding edge desktop though... |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
Thanks for the advice. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
/Daniel |
Archives