On Fri 23 Dec 2011 10:42 +0000, Paul Gideon Dann wrote: > On Friday 23 Dec 2011 05:32:25 Jonathan Vasquez wrote: > > 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. > > I think the point is that it can be dangerous to use ArchLinux for > critical applications, because there are occasional breakages during > updates. That's simply because Arch doesn't have a development cycle > including a QA phase. Distributions such as Debian can make certain > guarantees about the stability of their software, because they only > use older and thoroughly-tested software by default. QA like when Debian broke SSL? I would rather trust Arch Linux for critical applications.
