Arch Linux 0.6 (Widget)

[punkandacoke]

incase anyone wanted to know, I am running three servers using arch 0.5 and 0.6 and both are incredibally stable and I took some extra time hardening everything (openbsd standards) but for the most part, it is very secure. for desktop use, I've been with arch since 0.4 and its very nice. easier to maintain than slack in my opinion. but openbsd will always be the best, all around.

 

[NetRyder]

Good to hear, punkandacoke.

 

[punkandacoke]

ps: long time no talk netryder, its been a while

 

[NetRyder]

ps: long time no talk netryder, its been a while

Yep, haven't seen you around for a while. How have you been?

 

[NetRyder]

Arch 0.7 (Wombat) Beta2 released:
http://www.archlinux.org/

 

[sean.ferguson]

yes its unrequired bumpage but im downloading this to try out thanks for the good quick review Kunal

 

[X-Istence]

If FreeBSD is already working well for you, I don't see any need to move to Arch, since FreeBSD is also known to have an excellent ports tree, on which Arch's ABS system is heavily based.
But if you do want to use it, I don't see any reason why it should be a problem.

It seems that most of the current package management tools that also contain binary compilation are based on BSD equivelants.

Gentoo, Arch, darwinports and others.

Not that i mind, but at first people were sceptic of these systems saying they were inferior to packaged sources, and source RPMS and whatnot, and now the systems are being adapted in droves.

Whats wrong with Linux as a server? BSD server != Linux server || BSD server !> Linux server

Nothing, BTW you forgot:

BSD server != linux server || BSD server !> linux server | BSD server !< Linux server.

Ok, let's not turn this into a Linux vs. BSD argument. The fact remains that no OS is inherently "better" than the other - it just depends on what you want from it as a user, and how you manage it as an admin. I'm sure a poorly managed *BSD server would be neither secure nor stable, just like anything else. Get over it.

I agree to both points. I have seen many BSD systems get hacked because of the wrong perception that BSD is always secure. Bugs are found in all source code, and there are always ways to exploit them. So indeed no OS is more secure than the other.

It is however fact that the BSD source code is a lot more stable, as developers don't add code into the main source tree used by poeple UNTIL it has been tested several times, and has been checked over for proper bugs and whatnot. Whereas in linux it is add it as fast as possible, and fix bugs as they come back from users. Which means linux has a faster moving source tree and supports newer things much faster.

It is a users pick between the two. Stable and proven code, or faster moving code with support for new hardware faster.

no arguing bsd vs linux.

read this: http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/rants/bsd4linux/bsd4linux1.php

very informative.

I read that once, indeed is very informative, but it has it's biases. I remember reading a rebuttal to this site, and it contained a few good pointers on where the author is biased.

 

[NetRyder]

yes its unrequired bumpage but im downloading this to try out thanks for the good quick review Kunal

Cool, no probs.
If you like Slackware, I'm sure Arch will be a nice experience.