Am Tue, 03 Aug 2010 21:59:10 +0100 schrieb Mario Figueiredo <marfig@xxxxxxxxx>: > An argument can be made that this approach makes a rolling release > less attractive to users who have invested heavily in the supported > repositories. I heard this much just recently from a former Arch > user; The possibility of an an unpdate resulting in a post-update > maintenance nightmare to get the machine up and running again can be > a little scary. I hadn't had any post-update maintenance nightmares yet. Well, not nightmares. I want to know what is done and what happens on my system. Otherwise I would recommend a different distro. But to be honest I had a lot more post-update nightmares with SuSE, because YaST has always overridden my configurations. This can't happen with Arch due to the .pacnew files. And I don't think `diff configfile configfile.pacnew` and an `/etc/rc.d/daemon restart` is such a nightmare. Arch is only scary if people don't want to learn Linux and read documentations. There are better distros for those people. > But I do agree with you. I just don't think that waving the KISS > principle as a weapon achieves much. It's a tool. And it has its > disadvantages. Users must be aware of them. But with KISS you have the most control over your system. Well, there can be a few exceptions if they make sense. But this is not the case for daemon restarting. > If a user keeps the machine updated regularly and follows a tight > upgrade schedule, they will have to deal with only minor incidents > once and a while. And all easy to handle. Stop daemon, start daemon. > On the other hand, if a user decides to update their machine once > every two months, they must understand that it is not the rolling > release system that is at fault. It's them for not understanding > what's the point of a rolling release. I totally agree. Heiko
