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

                  • mittorn@masturbated.one
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    2 days ago

                    @jobbies @pmk arch means you cannot omit any update. If you do notsync pacman, you will not be able install any package (because they removing old versions from servers very quickly). If you sync pzcman and not update entire system, it will possiboy break on any package installation