Package Signing Comes To Pacman and Arch Linux
fwarren writes "One of the main complaints heard around here on why some Slashdotters don't run Arch Linux is that the packages are not signed. Fear no more: Arch Linux and Pacman now allow for package signing."
Which is surprising because SOAP is a patent free industry standard.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
What does Arch bring to the table?
Debian has a minimal install option, is committed to freedom, has an awesome package manager, has tons of packages available, and has multiple release tracks that allow one to stay cutting edge should one wish.
RedHat is commercially supported.
CentOS is the free version of RedHat.
SLES is commercially supported, with a deal with Microsoft to interoperate.
Ubuntu is Debian made easier.
Gentoo is for people who like to recompile software for their hardware.
I get all of the above distros. I don't run them all myself -- especially not gentoo -- but I understand why some people do.
What's the point of Arch? I poked at the website and wikipedia pages, but don't see an explanation of what it gives you over, say, a base Debian install.
Note: this is not intended as a troll. I'm curious as to what Arch brought to the table. Why was it introduced? I'm sure there's an answer, just curious what.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Warning. The parent post in unsigned and may have been forged.
Ezekiel 23:20
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I've been using Arch for years, and the constant flow of virii and rootkits that were deluging me might finally go away!
With all the recent news of linux package repositories being the main vector of all these advanced persistent threats my CPO (Chief Pentest Officer) has been telling me about, I can now breath a sigh of relief.
mov ah, 4ch
int 21h
I feel like such a fearless badman for running arch linux before the packages were signed