At Dienstag, 3. August 2010 22:59 Mario Figueiredo wrote: > An argument can be made that this approach makes a rolling release less > attractive to users who have invested heavily in the supported > repositories. I heard this much just recently from a former Arch user; > The possibility of an an unpdate resulting in a post-update maintenance > nightmare to get the machine up and running again can be a little scary.
I don't think that the principle of rolling releases support such mistakes more than as you use another distribution. You only move the timepoint more in the future but if such a distribution do the step from at example A to B than you have to do this "nightmare" search of changed config files for all packages. That's all because mistakes are even possible instead no one wants to make them. I think, and this is more my experience, that you will get a lot of more stories about updates in archlinux which runs without a problem instead the list of packages was enormous. See you, Attila
