[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On 30/08/13 18:12, bad apple wrote:
I must confess I come from a world where compiling a system for the computer that it runs on doesn’t seem that mad - I used to build the kernel on a 16Mhz 386 and my 400Mhz geode machine noticeably benefits from an optimised compile of a few apps. That is however done on my 4 core AMD machine that runs Ubuntu and seems to only run anything on 1 core despite going through the whole of Rogers Profanisaurus apart from folding@home that makes it overheat and shut down!!!On 30/08/13 17:42, Simon Waters wrote:Version 1 syndrome? It is easy to fork Debian, create some newer packages, and/or run a more lack view of copyright or freedom, and have a distro. It is slightly more work to maintain it, and no where near as much fun. So most distros end up trailing behind the Debian they forked from. Debian tried to help that with PureBlends, not sure how successful it was. Maybe if Debian had a release which would adopt stuff quicker people might be more motivated to contribute there, but it is a role mostly fulfilled by "testing" . Perhaps if we renamed "testing" as "exciting" people would use it more, and worry less that they don't understand the name, and it wouldn't be any worse than Arch by the sounds of it.That's actually not a bad idea - people tend to shy away from Debian Testing as they presume it's going to be a dangerously unstable proving ground for new technology... whereas in actuality, it's still a very stable, conservative system. I've never had a Debian Testing distro completely collapse on me (although even I no longer try to maintain a Sid install as my main OS - I have done several times before, and although it's great fun, eventually Sid *will* turn around and bite you hard). Trust me, nothing in the Linux world is worse than Arch. I think I've probably admined every single distro out there by this point (except SparkyLinux apparently!), rolled my own LFS versions, the lot: faced with a Win8 box or an Arch one, I'd unhesitatingly jump on the windows machine, install cygwin, and be off and running seconds later. Hell, I'd rather use a Mac than an Arch system and that is really saying something. For fun I just googled "Arch sucks" and read through the first page of so of results - hugely amusing and highly recommended. Nearly every single one revolves around a horror story regarding updates killing systems without warning, and sensible people jumping ship to something sane. One guy even switched from Arch to OpenBSD *because it was easier*. Just let that sink in for a second... if you ever find yourself compiling -current from CVS on an OpenBSD machine thinking, "Ah, that's better", then whatever system you have just jumped from must have been truly, spectacularly awful.
There is no other side of the argument - arch is run by people who feel anarchy is anally retentive and would make your average 5 year old windows programmer look like an experienced developer. Its a wonderfull idea but someone let the lunatics run the asylum ... and then gave them some acid.Regards PS: slightly disappointed that no Arch fans have jumped in to defend it - would be nice to hear something from the other side of the argument in the interest of fairness
Tom te tom te tom -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/listfaq