4 ms·
Arch is actually surprisingly stable and even with infrequent updates on the order of months still upgrades cleanly most of the time. The caveats to this were t
by jpgvm 7y ago
Arch is actually surprisingly stable and even with infrequent updates on the order of months still upgrades cleanly most of the time. The caveats to this were the great period of instability when switching to systemd, changing the /usr/lib layout, etc but those changes are now pretty far in the past.
- yjftsjthsd-h 7y agoSure, and I've done partial upgrades and it was mostly fine:) It just surprised me to see the devs going out of their way to support it on volunteer time. On the other hand, maybe that's exactly the reason; maybe someone said "hey look, I can make static packages that are immune to library changes! I guess I'll publish these in case they're useful". Open source is fun like that:)
- semi-extrinsic 7y agoAlso, Arch devs probably run Arch servers, and I'd not be surprised if some of those have uptimes in hundreds of days.
- Foxboron 7y agoAll Arch infra runs on Arch Linux. The infrastructure repository is all open. https://git.archlinux.org/infrastructure.git/ https://git.archlinux.org/infrastructure.git/ Now, official infra doesn't reach hundreds of days. But personal systems might :)
- netfl0 7y agoI remember that time. I had successfully migrate 2 systems to systemd from init. One was a production server. I felt like a genius at the time. Of course all the arch devs did all the real work :) (I wanted the challenge of running arch in production just to learn, good times)