Used to do DevOps before they even called it that way: Linux. Python. Perl. Java. Docker. For fun and profit. CTO level generalist working for a mid-sized tech-centric company.
Dresden, Germany
While I generally agree and tend to use Arch (or Antergos) on my personal working computers and laptops, your mileage might vary when talking about servers.
Arch is great but the "rolling release" approach can be a major pain if you keep productive applications running on Linux servers and, in example, want or need to install security patches but can't risk "larger" upgrades because they might break parts of your applications. That's where distributions with stable releases and long support terms (such as Ubuntu LTS or Debian) are better or at least make your life a bit easier. ;)
It's pronounced Diane. I do data architecture, operations, and backend development. In my spare time I maintain Massive.js, a data mapper for Node.js and PostgreSQL.
It's a two-edged sword for non-server users too. I run Arch and love it most of the time, but have for instance found myself unable to work with jobs in a remote Kubernetes cluster because kubectl had rolled to a newer version that wasn't 100% backwards-compatible with the unupgraded cluster.
Used to do DevOps before they even called it that way: Linux. Python. Perl. Java. Docker. For fun and profit. CTO level generalist working for a mid-sized tech-centric company.
Dresden, Germany
True, yes. I used to run into issues like these too, and this is a painful mess most of the time. But on a workstation it's way easier to resolve or work around this, at least given most of the people I know using Arch are somewhat tech-savvy and able to fix this more or less quickly. Nothing compared to an external production server not coming up again just because your application doesn't like the new libc which you can't easily downgrade without breaking half of your distribution ... ;)
While I generally agree and tend to use Arch (or Antergos) on my personal working computers and laptops, your mileage might vary when talking about servers.
Arch is great but the "rolling release" approach can be a major pain if you keep productive applications running on Linux servers and, in example, want or need to install security patches but can't risk "larger" upgrades because they might break parts of your applications. That's where distributions with stable releases and long support terms (such as Ubuntu LTS or Debian) are better or at least make your life a bit easier. ;)
It's a two-edged sword for non-server users too. I run Arch and love it most of the time, but have for instance found myself unable to work with jobs in a remote Kubernetes cluster because
kubectlhad rolled to a newer version that wasn't 100% backwards-compatible with the unupgraded cluster.True, yes. I used to run into issues like these too, and this is a painful mess most of the time. But on a workstation it's way easier to resolve or work around this, at least given most of the people I know using Arch are somewhat tech-savvy and able to fix this more or less quickly. Nothing compared to an external production server not coming up again just because your application doesn't like the new libc which you can't easily downgrade without breaking half of your distribution ... ;)
Yeah, for Servers, I usually use Ubuntu Server. My Arch recommendation is for desktops.