| 1 |
On Fri, 22 May 2009 07:40:28 -0300, Jorge Morais wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> > maybe you should just run a ~arch system. |
| 4 |
> I want a reliable system. Isn't ~arch quite less reliable than arch ? |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Not in my experience. ~arch only means the builds are in testing, the |
| 7 |
software is as reliable as upstream makes it. You may hit the occasional |
| 8 |
problem when updating, but once the software is installed it will be as |
| 9 |
reliable as on any other distro. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> (Also, newer software versions are often more bloated). |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
That's a highly subjective view, and quite irrelevant. New versions can |
| 14 |
be about adding features, or they can be about bug-fixing and optimising |
| 15 |
existing features. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> > It's been said many times that a mixed system is a potential source |
| 18 |
> > of trouble. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> I didn't hear it. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
It comes up on this list frequently when discussions about problems |
| 23 |
caused by mixing arch and ~arch are mentioned. I run mainly ~arch but a |
| 24 |
couple of computers run arch plus some packages in package.keywords. I can |
| 25 |
honestly say that the pure ~arch machines are just as reliable. The |
| 26 |
reason I run the arch boxes is that stability is important for them; not |
| 27 |
in the reliability sense (that's important everywhere) but in reducing |
| 28 |
the number of updates needed on each box. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Neil Bothwick |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Whats the difference between a magician and a brothel? |
| 35 |
One has a cunning array of stunts, |
Archives