On 03/16/2010 06:53 PM, Chris Allison wrote:
I would have thought that this only makes sense in the context of a "point-in-time release". i.e. you have a server which isn't updated as regularly as your desktop. The onus then is on the user to ensure that the versions of packages they are using are "safe". I don't see this as a problem with the rolling release system that Arch uses. Where it does make sense is if a publicly available, LTS type "server" repository is used. Then it would be up to the maintainer of the repo to keep on top of security fixes. regards Chris
Actually speaking, Arch is ideal for a server. With proper customization abilities and up-to-date software, your server is less likely to get compromised (unless improperly configured) in contrary to those of CentOS, RHEL < (yeah it is less than) Fedora, Ubuntu, etc. which keep very old packages.
-- Nilesh Govindarajan Site & Server Adminstrator www.itech7.com
