2011/12/23 Jonathan Vasquez <jvasquez1011@xxxxxxxxx>: > Hello everyone, > > I was reading the package signing discussion that was going on over at the > [pacman-dev] mailing list > http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2011-February/012483.html > > and Allan said the following: > > "I think I know every distribution using pacman as a package manager and > > (unless there is an enterprise level distro I am missing) if peoples > lives depend on one of these distros, then I am sorry to say it but in > my opinion they are stupid and deserve to die." > > > I wanted to know what was he trying to say? Is he saying that Arch and > other Arch-like distros aren't serious distros that aren't meant for > production? I mean I understand that Arch is rolling release and all > that, but it's packages are marked stable by their corresponding > upstreams. > > What are your opinions about this? > > > -- > Jonathan Vasquez Surely Allan intended to point out the idiocy of the idea that lives may depend on the key signing implementation for pacman. Somebody saying, quote: "When you work with any area of cryptography, remember that lives and certainly livelihoods can literally depend on your keystrokes (even though you may not want or expect them to), so get behind your work or don't do it. This isn't just a toy, free though it may be." has lost perspective.
