Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 18:21 UTC, submitted by Anonymous
Permalink for comment 550254
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/16/13 9:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/15/13 22:44 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2010-03-08
That said, rolling doesn't necessarily equate to Arch's bleeding edge style. If Ubuntu's smart it'll take a much slower and more measured pace.
I stopped using Arch, and in fact gave up on rolling distros altogether, around the time where a pacman update that trashed the package management database (the first v3 release IIRC) was pushed to the stable repo. Before, I had been trying Gentoo, which self-destructed in a similar way after a few months though I don't remember exactly how.
At this time, I figured out that I know of no rolling release distribution which has a rigorous software testing procedure in place to prevent such things from happening. It seems to me that in most cases, new packages are just put in a testing repo for a while, then moved to stable if no serious bug report emerges. This can be sufficient in some cases, but obviously isn't enough for a primary machine that must keep working for an indefinitely long period of time.
If someone knows of rolling distros that offers stronger package testing guarantees, even if it's at the cost of a bit of package freshness, I would be interested to know about them.
Edited 2013-01-24 06:06 UTC