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

Canonical Releases Snapcraft 2.12 Snaps Creator with New Parts Ecosystem, More

Today, June 29, 2016, Canonical has had the great pleasure of announcing the release of the highly anticipated Snapcraft 2.12 Snappy creator tool for the Ubuntu Linux operating system. Read more

AMDGPU-PRO Driver 16.30 Officially Released with Support for Ubuntu 16.04 LTS

Today, June 29, 2016, AMD released the final version of the AMDGPU-Pro 16.30 graphics driver for GNU/Linux operating systems, bringing support for new technologies like the Vulkan API. Read more

Red Hat News

Peppermint 7 Released

Peppermint 7 launched a few days ago. Peppermint is a lightweight Ubuntu-based Linux distribution with an emphasis on speed and simplicity. Although the name is similar to Linux Mint, the projects aren't directly related. Peppermint originally was envisioned as a "spicier" alternative to Mint—whatever that means! Many distros come with a wide assortment of feature-rich applications, and that's great for power users who need those apps. But older machines can struggle to cope with those demanding distros. Peppermint solves the problem by offering a carefully curated suite of web apps that perform tasks traditionally handled by native apps. It's an approach that will be familiar to any Chromebook users reading this article. Read more