Originally Posted by dansimon
I am no expert but I have heard that some people prize Arch as a server OS. One reason being that the changes come in very small packages and are easy for sysadmins to adapt to, as opposed to a full reinstall with massive changes, another strength is that you quickly get security patches straight from the source code developers, this is a nice contrast to servers such as Debian and RHEL witch has to maintain essentialy legacy software.
But if you are planing to run Arch as a server you *NEED* to subscribe to the security newsfeed and always check it before doing system updates. It is also probably wise to exclude mission critical packages from your package manager, and update these manually.
Conclusion: It is possible to use Arch as a server, but I don't know if it would be "better" then the more traditional server distros, and I would not recommend it to lazy sysadmins
You sort of just made my point :-P
Not a matter of being lazy but more a matter of things being vetted a bit more thoroughly before being pushed out to the repos, as I don't like getting beta's in my updates, nor managing "ignores" while I test every little thing extensively. Rolling distro's like Arch help find bugs push reports/fixes upstream but I don't want that in server land.