[arch-general] People that depend on Arch, etc deserve to die? - Allan McRae - Clarifications

[Øyvind Heggstad]

On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 15:52:13 -0500
Jonathan Vasquez <jvasquez1011 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Let's not forget Loui, We are all human and make mistakes. A QA
> process is definitely a good thing.
> 
> On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Loui Chang <louipc.ist at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri 23 Dec 2011 10:42 +0000, Paul Gideon Dann wrote:
> > > On Friday 23 Dec 2011 05:32:25 Jonathan Vasquez wrote:
> > > > I wanted to know what was he trying to say? Is he saying that
> > > > Arch and other Arch-like distros aren't serious distros that
> > > > aren't meant for production? I mean I understand that Arch is
> > > > rolling release and all that, but it's packages are marked
> > > > stable by their corresponding upstreams.
> > >
> > > I think the point is that it can be dangerous to use ArchLinux for
> > > critical applications, because there are occasional breakages
> > > during updates.  That's simply because Arch doesn't have a
> > > development cycle including a QA phase.  Distributions such as
> > > Debian can make certain guarantees about the stability of their
> > > software, because they only use older and thoroughly-tested
> > > software by default.
> >
> > QA like when Debian broke SSL? I would rather trust Arch Linux for
> > critical applications.
> >
> >
> 
> 
Arch do have a huge QA/QC department. And by chance, it happens to be
the exact same size as our user base :p