On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 08:09:34AM -0700, Snarkout wrote: > This is getting tiresome++ > > I'll be the first to agree with you that Arch is not 100% stable and robust. > I don't think it's really intended to be - at the very least it's touted > as "bleeding edge" and never "rock solid stable." I'm sure someone will take > exception to that opinion, though. Certainly I have had my share of issues > with upgrades, but I think you are either overstating the matter or are > extremely unlucky as I cannot remember any serious breakage for over a year > at this point. I have a serious question, and maybe one you need to ask your > self as well: Why do you run Arch? It seems to me that RH or Fedora are > more suited to your tastes packagemanager-wise, and perhaps slackware is more > suited to your tastes stability-wise. > > Don't mistake this post as a "if you don't like it here, pack up your stuff > and leave" type post - that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that your > interests and Arch's goals seem to be at odds. >
Just replying to let you and the rest of the ML know I am in complete, 100% agreement with you. _______________________________________________ arch mailing list [email protected] http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
