> I'm facing a decision to change five 'critical' machines > in need of an upgrade to Arch or not. Over the last months > I've installed Arch on three less critical ones to get to > know the system. Up to yesterday the decision looked quite > clear Then maybe you should select something that gives you more peace of mind. I'm not saying that you can't use Arch for mission critical machines but you need to know very well what you are doing. Currently for my personal use I don't want anything else other than Arch but for machines that have more users and _need_ to keep working I'm using centos (devs I'm sorry to hinder your world domination plans but I think I'm not competent enough to manage Arch on a server so better use something that in theory will give me less surprises). > but today I'm having a hard time trying to ignore the > 'cocky attitude' and keeping focused on technical arguments. > Which as you wrote have been lacking somewhat, with some > nice exceptions. I don't think anyone is having a 'cocky attitude', Arch works like this, thats all. Other distros have other goals and policies, you need to pick the one that you feel comfortable with.
