DVCS

[arch 4 ever]

Jeff Nowakowski Wrote:

> On 01/20/2011 07:33 AM, Gour wrote:
> > On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 06:39:08 -0500
> > Jeff Nowakowski<jeff at dilacero.org>  wrote:
> >
> >
> >> No, I haven't tried it. I'm not going to try every OS that comes down
> >> the pike.
> >
> > Then please, without any offense, do not give advises about something
> > which you did not try. I did use Ubuntu...
> 
> Please yourself. I quoted from the FAQ from the distribution's main 
> site. If that's wrong, then Arch has a big public relations problem. I 
> can make rational arguments without having used a system.

Listen you haven't used Arch so u don't know a shit. Stop bashing other distros and stick with your Noobuntu. You suck

> 
> >> That's a heavy investment of time, especially for somebody
> >> unfamiliar with Linux.
> >
> > Again, you're speaking without personal experience...
> 
>  From Jonathan M Davis in this thread:
> 
> "There is no question that Arch takes more to manage than a number of 
> other distros. [..] Arch really doesn't take all that much to maintain, 
> but it does have a higher setup cost than your average distro, and you 
> do have to do some level of manual configuration that I'd expect a more 
> typical distro like OpenSuSE or Ubuntu to take care of for you."

That was just bullshit. Gour said Arch is easier to administrate and it's true. Pacman creates new conf files in /etc. Use meld to fix them. Much easier than Noooobuntu.
> 
> 
> > Moreover, in TDPL's foreword, Walter speaks about himself as "..of an
> > engineer..", so I'm sure he is capable to handle The Arch Way
> 
> You're talking about somebody who is running a nearly 3 year old version 
> of Ubuntu because he had one bad upgrade experience, and is probably 
> running software full of security holes. If he can't spend a day a year 
> to upgrade his OS, what makes you think he wants to spend time on a more 
> demanding distro?

Once he learns the Linux way or the Arch way, he starts to suffer from sleep deprivation because the administration is so fun. 

> 
> > There are no incompatibilities...if I upgrade kernel, it means that
> > package manager will figure out what components has to be updated...
> 
> And what happens when the kernel, as it often does, changes the way it 
> handles things like devices, and expects the administrator to do some 
> tweaking to handle the upgrade? What happens when you upgrade X and it 
> no longer supports your video chipset? What happens when you upgrade 
> something as basic as the DNS library, and it reacts badly with your router?

It just manages it. Try it.

> 
> Is Arch going to maintain your config files for you? Is it going to 
> handle jumping 2 or 3 versions for software that can only upgrade from 
> one version ago?

Yes.

> 
> These are real world examples. Arch is not some magic distribution that 
> will make upgrade problems go away.

The point is, it's better than Nooobuntu or Gentoo. It doesn't need more merits.

> 
> > Remember: there are no packages 'tagged' for any specific release!
> 
> Yeah, I know. I also run Debian Testing, which is a "rolling release". 
> I'm not some Ubuntu noob.

It's GNU/Debian Linux, not just Debian, you insensitive clod! Debian only contains ancient packages like kde 3 in their stable. It's for old bearded communists.