Comment by dvfjsdhgfv
8 years ago
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).
8 years ago
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.
There is an expectation that projects dogfood their own software, but I really can't think of a rational reason for a production server not affiliated with the Arch project to be running Arch.
Rolling release is great for technically competent users to install on their workstations, but why would you ever want a rolling release on a production server?
2 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.
I ran SID in a embedded customer box testing unreleased software, I did run it in KVM from a stable release since I wouldn’t have physical access if something went wrong, glad I did.