Comment by dozzie
8 years ago
The thing is not that it's a new deficiency or something, it's just that Arch user conveniently ignore this when praising their distribution over e.g. Debian.
8 years ago
The thing is not that it's a new deficiency or something, it's just that Arch user conveniently ignore this when praising their distribution over e.g. Debian.
AUR repository isn't supported by the core tools and packages. To use it one has to install external scripts. So it's by no means part of the system.
All it takes to build air packages is makepkg from the core pacman package. With gut you can grab aur packages from the terminal, and hit is also core. Every Arch install must have pacman and hit is in base-devel, a package group in core all AUR pkgbuilds are designed to assume is installed.
Urm, you need git, you need build tools... and pacman.
That's it. But oh yeah, because I do these things by hand and check whether the source urls point to the place I'd actually like to install (and other code doesn't download external sources, eg. in the PKGBUILD or external scripts like *.install files), I'm suddenly an exception.
I just noticed that the blue used on the Archlinux logo is actually quite consistent with Rick's hair color. https://i.imgur.com/kkE25w2.jpg Fits me. I don't give a damn.
I'll assure you Rick has a blue-grayish color while the Arch logo is Navy Blue.
Which, as I said, very conveniently is glossed over by Arch users.
That's a problem with Arch users, not with Arch. It's unfortunately common that fanboys undermine the reputation of reasonable software.
6 replies →
Fortunately admins are not unreasonable and don't base their decisions on praises but on actual merits, so most servers run Debian rather than Arch (which is an interesting distro for other usage cases).
Who would want to use a rolling release distribution for a (production) server? Sounds like a pretty terrible choice, to be quite honest.
Maybe you could make the case for some cutting edge development or test box, but then again, I'd rather be testing on something that's as close to identical to the production environment as possible.
I used Arch on my laptop (primarily used for development) for several years. It mostly worked great and I always had access to the newest whatever with a minimum of hassle. I don't have many complaints, but occasionally after an update something critical would stop working.
I'm on Solus now and, so far, it's been pretty great. :-)
All of the Arch Linux infrastructure is run on Arch. Works pretty well.
3 replies →
Nobody that values their job or sleeping well at night. It's basically one level of nuts above and beyond running Debian Sid on all your production servers.
1 reply →