Linked by Ben Mazer on Wed 15th Oct 2003 20:58 UTC
A few months ago I was a Slackware Junkie. I loved it, and laughed at those who used 'more automatic' distributions (ok, I didn't actually laugh). Then Arch Linux 0.5 came out and I was very intrigued by it. I was getting tired of having to compile updated packages myself. 
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
From the article it sounds like the init scripts might be the same as Slack's or at least similar.
Then it is said that everyone can submit packages and has not to "proove" himself. What about security? Can everyone submit malware and broken packages or is there some QA?
That was a major concern of mine as well. I don't know if its a good idea that you don't have to "proove" yourself to submit packages. Is anyone security checking the packages and checking them for stability?
I think I'm going to pass on Arch. I just recently started running slack, and quite honestly it's been the only distribution I've ever run that makes sense. This sounds like a cross between gentoo and debian, neither of which I liked because I felt helpless when a package b0rked my system. He said he didn't like debian, other than being able to get newer (potentially unsafe and unstable) packages, how is Arch different?
Just my 2 cents.