[chungy]

The article makes the presumptions that one would be running Arch on a server and that you must be using nginx as a web server.

The latter half of that is particularly striking to me, given that he immediately dives into a shortcoming of nginx... rather than reaching for Apache, he works around nginx's shortcoming.

[moistbar]

Arch also doesn't make for a particularly good server OS.

[megous]

Why? (Asking as someone running Arch on many servers for the last 5 years, and debian server for much longer)

I can think of a few things I dislike, but all of the failures so far were self-inflicted. Like forgetting to update packages that I self compiled outside of supported repository.

It's not completely autonomous when it comes to upgrades, you have to think for a while before hitting "yes" after seeing the list of packages to update, but so is not Debian in the long run... (some of the servers I have to manage are 13 years old or so, and going through major dist-upgrades is never that pleasant either. It's a bit more hassle, because I don't trust the major version upgrade so I have to run them on a backup VM first just to see whether some issues will crop up).

But having the latest versions of the programs is great, I don't have to second guess myself when writing new programs (will it be compatible?), can use the latest kernel APIs, etc.

[moistbar]

This is all personal experience, so obvious salt is required with it.

I've had bizarre networking bugs pop up on arch that I've not had elsewhere. I also just don't like rolling releases as much as I used to. Since the majority of what I do can be containerized, I prefer a much slower release cadence for my hosts, and anything that requires more up to date packages just gets thrown in a container.

Basically, I think my server workflow just doesn't line up with how arch works. On desktops it's great, since I'll always have up to date video drivers, desktop environments, etc, but on a server I don't usually use things that require the latest and greatest software. I figure as long as it's still getting bug fixes, I'm probably fine.

[candiddevmike]

Arch changes too much, and change means risk. In my opinion, for production, boring is always best. If the latest flavor of X is absolutely essential for the business, there are typically ways to get it for most LTS distros (back ports, third part repos, etc).

[moistbar]

It also changes in ways that can make it hard to automate deployments. For instance, the base package group used to include a kernel, but no longer does.