Comments by "Zer0" (@ForeverZer0) on "Major Linux Kernel Regression Escapes Arch Testing" video.

  1.  @lorenzo42p  I understand, I do it for a living. If my failure case is not failing when it should be, it is a flawed failure case and not accounting for something. Not failing is still informative.
    4
  2. I have a philosophical aversion to flatpaks, snaps, etc. I understand their purpose in theory, just never actually had the need for them in practice.
    4
  3. I am also confused why Brodie thinks that "works on my system" is somehow not an appropriate (and helpful) response in this context. It indicates the proof-of-concept for the error is flawed and not accounting for some significant factor. If it was a full-proof example of the failure, then it would have failed.
    2
  4.  @Thorned_Rose  I agree, though it is par for the course: raggin on Arch is trendy for some really bizarre reason that I never figured out. I assume it is based on the memes about Arch users being gatekeepers, and people who actually took it serious. it doesn't help that Brodie helps proliferate the idea that Arch doesn't do testing and refers to it as a beta-testing distro. It is scary how many non-Arch users, possible even the majority, that actually believe that Arch does no testing and it just pushes out updates the second the upstream comes out with a new stable release.
    1