3 ms·
I can't ever go back to CentOS/RHEL or Debian/Ubuntu for my personal machine after having seen the flexibility that Arch provides. Don't get me wrong, technica
by therein 8y ago
I can't ever go back to CentOS/RHEL or Debian/Ubuntu for my personal machine after having seen the flexibility that Arch provides.
Don't get me wrong, technically you can make Ubuntu just as flexible but you have to try to configure it that way. All the conveniences they brought into these distros for simple package management actually sets you up for failure when you are doing larger upgrades. Not to mention that the packages in their repos are often out of date.
I never had my Arch box fail me across upgrades, allowing me to actually be current in the code I run.
It's a healthy middle between Gentoo and CentOS if you don't want to build it all from source but yet still be current.
Even opkg and some IPAs are better than the package manager experience I had with apt-get or yum/dnf.
- icebraining 8y agoMy Debian Unstable laptop installation is over ten years old (and on its third laptop), and the packages are pretty recent, since Unstable is a rolling version. And despite the name, it's pretty solid, I don't remember the last issue I had with it.
- alrs 8y agoYou're never going to run Arch in production, so developing against "current" software means "hire a team of sysadmins to package all of these future-versions in to the conservative distro that we have in prod". With luck it will be less than $1M/yr. This is why people don't use homebrew anymore, either. If you're running a Mac you dev in a Docker container that reflects your production environment.
- rl3 8y agoI think you're making assumptions here. GP said that Arch allows them to be current in the code they run. That doesn't mean they're developing against Arch.