On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 15:52:13 -0500 Jonathan Vasquez <jvasquez1011@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. > > > > > > Arch do have a huge QA/QC department. And by chance, it happens to be the exact same size as our user base :p
