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 |