On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 20:28:43 -0500 Jeff Nowakowski <j...@dilacero.org> wrote:
> "Q) Why would I not want to use Arch? > > A) [...] you do not have the ability/time/desire for a > 'do-ityourself' GNU/Linux distribution" I've feeling that you just copied the above from FAQ and never actually tried Archlinux. The "do-it-yourself" from the above means that in Arch user is not forced to use specific DE, WM etc., can choose whether he prefers WiCD over NM etc. On the Ubuntu side, there are, afaik, at least 3 distros achieving the same thing (Ubuntu, KUbuntu, XUBuntu) with less flexibility. :-D > I also don't see how Archlinux protects you from an outdated system. > It's up to you to update your system. The longer you wait, the more > chance incompatibilities creep in. That's not true...In Arch there is simply no Arch-8.10 or Arch-10.10 which means that whenever you update your system package manager will simply pull all the packages which are required for desired kernel, gcc version etc. I service my father-in-law's machine and he is practically illiterate for computers and often I do not update his system for months knowing well he does not require bleeding edge stuff, so when there is time for the update it is simple: pacman -Syu with some more packages in a queue than on my machine. ;) Otoh, with Ubuntu, upgrade from 8.10 to 10.10 is always a major undertaking (I'm familiar with it since '99 when I used SuSE and had experience with deps hell.) Sincerely, Gour -- Gour | Hlapicina, Croatia | GPG key: CDBF17CA ----------------------------------------------------------------
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
