Let's not forget Loui, We are all human and make mistakes. A QA process is definitely a good thing. On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Loui Chang <louipc.ist@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. > > -- Jonathan Vasquez
