On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 15:52:13 -0500 Jonathan Vasquez <jvasquez1011@gmail.com> wrote:
Let's not forget Loui, We are all human and make mistakes. A QA process is definitely a good thing.
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Loui Chang <louipc.ist@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri 23 Dec 2011 10:42 +0000, Paul Gideon Dann wrote:
On Friday 23 Dec 2011 05:32:25 Jonathan Vasquez wrote:
I wanted to know what was he trying to say? Is he saying that Arch and other Arch-like distros aren't serious distros that aren't meant for production? I mean I understand that Arch is rolling release and all that, but it's packages are marked stable by their corresponding upstreams.
I think the point is that it can be dangerous to use ArchLinux for critical applications, because there are occasional breakages during updates. That's simply because Arch doesn't have a development cycle including a QA phase. Distributions such as Debian can make certain guarantees about the stability of their software, because they only use older and thoroughly-tested software by default.
QA like when Debian broke SSL? I would rather trust Arch Linux for critical applications.
Arch do have a huge QA/QC department. And by chance, it happens to be the exact same size as our user base :p