Language Selection

English French German Italian Portuguese Spanish

better stability & security

Rolling release is good for

Rolling release is good for one reason. You get the full security and bug fix updates as intended by upstream.

No amount of backporting fixes is enough to keep a system secure and bug free. It's as simple as that. If I backport fixes from kernel git tree to a stable kernel 2.6.2x release, I'm most likely going to miss a lot of fixes. Cherry picking fixes for popular bugs only isn't a solution and causes weakness in Static release distributions.

The only requirement for a rolling release to work is to keep the base system as simple as possible. Theoretically, no downstream patching should be done in packages such as glibc, gcc or kernel unless it is a patch waiting to be eventually merged in a future upstream release.

re: poll

For servers - Static release/repo.

The "theory" of rolling releases is great, but the real world application, not so much.

Servers MUST be stable and secure. With a rolling release, you rely too much on the upstream vendor not to fubar something your system must have (not that it can't be done - mainframes have been doing rolling upgrades for decades - it's just EXPENSIVE to do it right).

RHEL/CENTOS has the right business model. Forget the fluff (and or bleeding edge stuff), only put well tested software into their repo's, backport security as needed, and support the whole thing for 5 years (or longer for security patches)

Of course it doesn't really matter what method the upstream vendor uses, you still need to run a parallel test environment along side your production environment, and test everything (and I mean EVERYTHING) in the first before rolling it out on the second.

It's just easier (for me anyways) to plan your server environments (and their future) if you have static (but not the ridiculously short 6 month timeframe) releases.

Which would you say is better for a linux server?

I have heard the topic discussed in various forums and points of view.

Which would you say is the better choice for a linux based server?

Please give reasoning for your answers and not post "sux" or "rules" nonsense.

Big Bear

More in Tux Machines

Qt Creator 3.4 RC1 released

We are happy to announce the release of Qt Creator 3.4 RC1 today. I already described many of the new features in the beta blog post. Since then, we fixed many bugs, including a whole lot of debugger integration issues, and generally polished Qt Creator for release. You find the more complete change log at code.qt.io. Read more

Allwinner: "We Are Taking Initiative Actions Internally"

Allwinner has been taking a lot of heat lately for violating open-source licenses with their Linux binary blob components. They then got caught obfuscating their code to try to hide their usage of open-source code, shifted around their licenses, and has continued jerking around the open-source community. Read more

Alcatel-Lucent Brings Hardware and Software VXLAN to OmniSwitch 6900-Q32

As part of the OmniSwitch 6900-Q32 release, there is also a new firmware update across the OmniSwitch portfolio with the Alcatel-Lucent Operating System (AOS) 7.3.4 update. AOS has been based on Linux since 2010 and the AOS 7 update. Read more

Acer Taking Chrome OS, Cloud Apps to the Desktop

The Chromebase also has has two 3W audio speakers and HDMI out, USB 3.0, USB 2.0 ports in addition to 802.11a/b/g/n Wi-Fi and Bluetooth 4.0 wireless connectivity options. Read more Original: Acer Announces Industry’s First Chrome OS AIO PC with Touch Display