Not a good statement about Arch
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| nmset Feb 09, 2022 4:03 PM EDT |
The statement "Arch is bad for servers" cannot be a canonical one. The author does stress that good management is key : "periodically update... if you don't pay attention... ". Since Arch can be updated to an arbitrary date from online repositories, it can also be viewed like well known versioned distributions, just choose a date. Moreover, an Arch installation may update from a LAN repository, that can serve known packages to client machines. These two scenarios are reduced to a few lines in the mirrorlist file. Lack of Commercial Support : hiring Arch knowledgeable candidates would be similar to hiring someone well versed in such and such versioned distribution. > break functionality : upgrading a versioned distribution three years later may have the same result. The type of distribution does not exempt from testing before deployment. > such as a test server : Why would one test on a not deployed distribution ? People have preferences that one should respect, either for rolling or versioned distributions. "Arch is bad for servers" is just disturbing. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!