Moderators: raboof, MattKingUSA, khz
I agree, but for a very different reason than your lengthy explication. My reason is:CrocoDuck wrote:I think this discussion is getting on the pointless side.
...and no one has to use Arch.danboid wrote:I hate it under Linux every time I pacman -Syu or dist-upgrade as it could all go wrong and if you've not took an image of your OS before you upgrade you could be spending the next few days reinstalling the lot, in some drastic cases.
You're telling us that you have to update it and watch for pitfalls every day to keep it in good shape.CrocoDuck wrote:However, I take good care of my Arch by updating each day and taking manual interventions right away. This way it stays pretty stable.
(...)
An update on Arch after a month can break things.
there are tools at least for btrfs, zfs & lvm that take care about making snapshot before upgrade automatically.every time I pacman -Syu or dist-upgrade as it could all go wrong and if you've not took an image of your OS before you upgrade you could be spending the next few days reinstalling the lot, in some drastic cases.
Let's assume that it is a Tamagotchi (despite the Arch wiki too stating somewhere that updating each day is perhaps overkill). Do I like it? Then I go for it. And you have not any right to pretend you can dictate what it is a good OS or not, and laugh in the face of people just making a rational decision based, you know, on pros and cons of things. Not even me, not even anybody else.Luc wrote:
So... is that an OS or a Tamagotchi?
Being offended on behalf of a tool doesn't, indeed, make any sense and I think you are totally right on the above. Problem is that things like this (just one example):Luc wrote:Assuming the OS is too high maintenance, many people may choose to steer clear from it, and can only take such decision after they are informed of said characteristics, and that's why we discuss characteristics in a forum. Being offended on behalf of a tool doesn't really make sense.
Make you appear as you are trying to completely dismiss the tool as something even useful, as to imply that the particular tool has not concrete pros and real use. Many arguments you supplied before were seemingly in this direction: more to dismiss the tool usefulness rather than to inform about the tool itself. Could it be that I misinterpreted you? Could be, if your intents were actually the ones you disclosed above. In this case I would say "sorry, I didn't get the point,Luc wrote: I've never understood the appeal of Arch. Is it because it's fast? How old and/or slow is your computer?
" but I would also encourage you to express your points clearly: the way you write really made you look like bare and simply confrontational and dismissive. Which doesn't offend me but slightly irritates me, as it is not constructive and, again: why are we talking about Arch on this thread?I dared say that FreeBSD had many inadequacies and danboid defended that OS by criticizing Linux based on his experience with Arch:CrocoDuck wrote:(...) and, again: why are we talking about Arch on this thread?
In hindsight, I see that I could have disagreed with a much better argument: he compared FreeBSD with Arch Linux, which is a rolling release distro, which is apples to oranges since FreeBSD (or any BSD that I know of for that matter) is very far from the rolling release model. You can't even upgrade userland in between releases, it's all or nothing.danboid wrote:I hate it under Linux every time I pacman -Syu or dist-upgrade as it could all go wrong and if you've not took an image of your OS before you upgrade you could be spending the next few days reinstalling the lot, in some drastic cases.
All could live in peace again? uhhh, except the small community of debian sid users, which as well prone the rolling release circle. Wont you let them as well from the hook?Luc wrote:So, if that makes any of you feel better, the problem is not Arch, but the rolling release approach, so Arch is off the hook and we can all live in peace again.
