Language Selection

English French German Italian Portuguese Spanish

better stability & security

Rolling release/repo
73% (183 votes)
Static release/repo
27% (67 votes)
Total votes: 250

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

6 Ideal Last Minute Linux Xmas Gift Ideas

Christmas, Yule, Winterville, new socks day… Whatever you call it you’ll be panic stricken to hear that it’s almost here. Like the rest of us in denial, you are a little stumped for ideas. Read more

Reviewing 2014, Penguin Porn, and Dropping Distros

Today in Linux news are several reviews of the events of 2014. Elsewhere Linux.conf.au lost its hashtag to an adult entertainment awards and another Linux security flaw is making the news rounds. KDE 3-clone Trinity desktop saw a new release and Bruce Byfield asks why the number of Linux distributions are declining. Read more

Firefox OS Expands to Nearly 30 Countries

Firefox OS has brought choice to the mobile industry with 14 smartphones offered by 14 operators in 28 countries. Firefox OS unlocks mobile ecosystem participants from the barriers set by proprietary systems, allowing for independence, control and innovation. Read more

Red Hat Brings Business Intelligence and Data Analysis Suite to the Public Cloud

Red Hat (RHT) has broadened the deployment options for its integrated data analysis and business intelligence platform with the announcement that Red Hat Enterprise Linux for SAP HANA can now run across a variety of public cloud providers that Red Hat has certified, as well as on new hardware configurations. Read more