[arch-general] People that depend on Arch, etc deserve to die? - Allan McRae - Clarifications

[Jonathan Vasquez]

Thanks for the response. Do you consider Arch a production system or more
of a hobby project? Meaning more like a side system and not a main one.
On Dec 23, 2011 5:39 AM, "Allan McRae" <allan at archlinux.org> wrote:

> On 23/12/11 20:32, Jonathan Vasquez wrote:
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > I was reading the package signing discussion that was going on over at
> the
> > [pacman-dev] mailing list
> >
> http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2011-February/012483.html
> >
> > and Allan said the following:
> >
> > "I think I know every distribution using pacman as a package manager and
> >
> > (unless there is an enterprise level distro I am missing) if peoples
> > lives depend on one of these distros, then I am sorry to say it but in
> > my opinion they are stupid and deserve to die."
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > What are your opinions about this?
> >
>
> I was saying, I would not stake my life on the stability of Arch Linux.
>  It has been know to get broken and not just by bad packaging.  Upstream
> "stable" releases are not necessarily stable.  e.g. bash-4.2.005 was a
> minor upstream bug fix that resulted in Arch not booting.
>
> Allan
>
>