3 ms·
I used to run Arch, I don't anymore although not for stability reasons. 13 instances of "manual intervention required" over 6 years seems awesome. I think I d
by monsieurbanana 7y ago
I used to run Arch, I don't anymore although not for stability reasons.
13 instances of "manual intervention required" over 6 years seems awesome.
I think I did 2 manual interventions during my time using Archlinux, and each time it took maybe 2 minutes, it was just a matter of copy-pasting the commands in Arch News.
- pnako 7y agoThat's not awesome at all, it means something happening every 6 months. In corporate environments this means all the ceremony around it: tickets, CAB, etc. Meanwhile you can use RHEL or CentOS and basically leave the thing alone for 5 years.
- monsieurbanana 7y agoIn corporate environments I probably wouldn't recommend Arch for corporate environments, but at this point I feel I should point out I wouldn't recommend Linux either if you're working in a windows shop.
- mratsim 7y agoRHEL and CentOS are not targeting the same users as Arch. Distros targeting the same desktop needs are Ubuntu, Mint, Debian-flavors, Fedora, Gentoo, ... In corporate environment for critical software you would get a contract with an on-call duty and you would only have a limited choice fo supported distros.
- celticmusic 7y agoabsolutely, but the problem is that when I pointed out that arch is less stable than these other distro's, I had people trying to defend that claim. There is no defending it, it's a fact of life. You get bleeding edge at the cost of stability.