Quote:
Originally Posted by mushroomboy 
Right, the same patches can be applied to previous versions as well. That's how Debian patches a lot of it's stuff, though most programs don't do anything major when that happens. if it applies to your hardware, then it might be worth it. Xorg fixes stuff all the time, while breaking stuff all the time. However the thing is, the small stuff gets updated in Debian (probably other distros as well). The packages that you call "cave man" or whatever aren't really THAT important. That was my point, you don't need that bleeding edge, yet you dangle it over other distributions like it's some sort of high and mighty.
Maybe you should try other distributions that allow you to trim things down, get a little more perspective on the whole idea. I've ran Arch with the same bs that comes with a full fledged desktop, there was no major difference other than things being slightly more up to date. I've actually had more problems when I've compared them apples to apples with the same amount of software running than even Ubuntu. I do like how Arch lets you slim things down a lot easier, I just don't see it as any real speed increase. It's like hacking windows services, of course it runs faster as it's running less.
Right, the same patches can be applied to previous versions as well. That's how Debian patches a lot of it's stuff, though most programs don't do anything major when that happens. if it applies to your hardware, then it might be worth it. Xorg fixes stuff all the time, while breaking stuff all the time. However the thing is, the small stuff gets updated in Debian (probably other distros as well). The packages that you call "cave man" or whatever aren't really THAT important. That was my point, you don't need that bleeding edge, yet you dangle it over other distributions like it's some sort of high and mighty.
Maybe you should try other distributions that allow you to trim things down, get a little more perspective on the whole idea. I've ran Arch with the same bs that comes with a full fledged desktop, there was no major difference other than things being slightly more up to date. I've actually had more problems when I've compared them apples to apples with the same amount of software running than even Ubuntu. I do like how Arch lets you slim things down a lot easier, I just don't see it as any real speed increase. It's like hacking windows services, of course it runs faster as it's running less.
I've run every distribution ( aside from all the stupid ubuntu offshoots " Christian Ubuntu " anyone? ), but why bother with others? Arch is my system of choice, and pacman my package manager of choice, meaning Arch best suits me. I don't dangle bleeding edge over other distributions, I was simply stating my opinion which is what this whole thread was about. Have you read the older posts yet, or did you just hop in? At no point have I ever said anything is better than another in any way shape or form. I have simply stated why I like bleeding edge. Which I have also made clear in several posts. It's not my fault jrl got his panties in a bundle over me stating my opinion. And well, you always have your in a bundle, so that doesn't surprise me any.
And as I said earlier in this thread which you seemed to have missed. But let me repeat it for you;
Quote:
Not trying to make it out like Arch is the second coming. Just saying, the issues people think it has because of it's rolling release nature are, for the most part, non-existant.
P.S. You praise your distro as much as I praise mine. Don't try to act like we're so different.
