4 ms·
Having a large organization is helpful because you have the option of buying commercial support. I personally wouldn't go with Arch simply because there isn't
by tsally 18y ago
Having a large organization is helpful because you have the option of buying commercial support. I personally wouldn't go with Arch simply because there isn't a stable branch. Rather, everything is cutting edge. I know you can chose not to update your Arch install, but I'd still rather go with a distribution where stability is a priority. That being said, Arch is surprisingly stable given its rolling release model.
You also might want to take a look at Debian, which has a track record of being stable. Honestly though, Debian is a bit stuck in the past, as seen with the delays in the past two releases. They really do care about stability though.
- thwarted 18y agoThere are two sides to stability: "stability through lack of change" and "stability through tracking upstream". I seem to get bitten by the former more frequently than I'd like with certain distributions. Then there are problems with upstream some times, this Mysql 5.1 GA release may end up being problematic for distributions that track upstream really closely. But I consider that to be more bleeding edge than not. I'd like to see some distributions smartly packaging both a considered stable version and a closer to bleeding edge version, without goofy include-the-version-in-the-package-name cruft (except in the case where upstream does it, like sqlite did with sqlite and sqlite3 naming), so it's easier to pick and chose and move between versions without double installs and a lot of conflicts. Its more likely easier to just stay on an older distribution release than it would be to maintain this.