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

Android Leftovers

7 tools for analyzing performance in Linux with bcc/BPF

A new technology has arrived in Linux that can provide sysadmins and developers with a large number of new tools and dashboards for performance analysis and troubleshooting. It's called the enhanced Berkeley Packet Filter (eBPF, or just BPF), although these enhancements weren't developed in Berkeley, they operate on much more than just packets, and they do much more than just filtering. I'll discuss one way to use BPF on the Fedora and Red Hat family of Linux distributions, demonstrating on Fedora 26. BPF can run user-defined sandboxed programs in the kernel to add new custom capabilities instantly. It's like adding superpowers to Linux, on demand. Examples of what you can use it for include: Read more

Why the open source community needs a diverse supply chain

Diversity and inclusivity in the technology industry—and in open source communities more specifically—have received a lot of coverage, both on and elsewhere. One approach to the issue foregrounds arguments about concepts that are more abstract—like human decency, for example. But the "supply chain" metaphor works, too. And it can be an effective argument for championing greater inclusivity in our open organizations, especially when people dismiss arguments based on appeals to abstract concepts. Open organizations require inclusivity, which is a necessary input to get the diversity that reduces the risk in our supply chain. Read more

Red Hat: Kerala, Amazon and More