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

Snapcraft 2.12 Coming Soon to Ubuntu 16.04, Lets You Access the Parts Ecosystem

The development of Snapcraft, the handy Ubuntu utility that lets you create Snaps for your applications, which you can now distribute across multiple operating systems, is advancing at a fast pace, and it looks like Snapcraft 2.12 will land soon. Read more

GeckoLinux 421.160627.0 "Static" Editions Released Based on openSUSE Leap 42.1

Users of the GeckoLinux distribution are in for yet another treat after the announcement of updated GeckoLinux 421.160623.0 "Rolling" Editions based on the latest openSUSE Tumbleweed snapshots. Read more

Parsix GNU/Linux 8.5 and 8.10 Receive New Security Patches, Latest LTS Kernels

Today, June 28, 2016, the developers behind the Debian-based Parsix GNU/Linux computer operating system have announced that new security patches and kernel versions are available for both Parsix GNU/Linux 8.5 and 8.10. Read more

Five reasons to switch from Windows to Linux

Linux has been in the ascendancy ever since the open source operating system was released, and has been improved and refined over time so that a typical distribution is now a polished and complete package comprising virtually everything the user needs, whether for a server or personal system. Much of the web runs on Linux, and a great many smartphones, and numerous other systems, from the Raspberry Pi to the most powerful supercomputers. So is it time to switch from Windows to Linux? Here are five reasons why. Read more