Hacker News Reader

I used to run Arch, I don't anymore although not for stability reasons.

13 instances of "manual intervention required" over 6 years seems awesome.

I think I did 2 manual interventions during my time using Archlinux, and each time it took maybe 2 minutes, it was just a matter of copy-pasting the commands in Arch News.

View on HN

That's not awesome at all, it means something happening every 6 months. In corporate environments this means all the ceremony around it: tickets, CAB, etc.

Meanwhile you can use RHEL or CentOS and basically leave the thing alone for 5 years.

RHEL and CentOS are not targeting the same users as Arch.

Distros targeting the same desktop needs are Ubuntu, Mint, Debian-flavors, Fedora, Gentoo, ...

In corporate environment for critical software you would get a contract with an on-call duty and you would only have a limited choice fo supported distros.

absolutely, but the problem is that when I pointed out that arch is less stable than these other distro's, I had people trying to defend that claim.

There is no defending it, it's a fact of life. You get bleeding edge at the cost of stability.

In corporate environments

I probably wouldn't recommend Arch for corporate environments, but at this point I feel I should point out I wouldn't recommend Linux either if you're working in a windows shop.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com