• pmk@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 days ago

      Do you think you would have that opinion if you ran arch on mission critical production servers for a couple of years?

        • pmk@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          Well, for the sake of clarity, lets separate stability and reliability? Stability means unchanging. Reliable means it won’t crash or behave in unexpected ways.

            • pmk@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              3 days ago

              If you have a better word for the concept of unchanging functionality and interfaces, I’m open to using that in this context. In describing distros, I’ve only come across the word stable for this. Reliable is a wider concept to me, and also includes being relatively free of bugs. A stable distro can still be buggy, if it’s the same bugs tomorrow as yesterday.

                • pmk@lemmy.sdf.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  3 days ago

                  You wrote “It is a myth that arch is unstable”. Arch, being rolling release, is by definition changing. This is, imho, the opposite of stable. This is why it’s important to use precise words. I have no interest in continuing this discussion since you don’t seem to argue in good faith.