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

Latest Ubuntu Touch SDK Updates Focus on Convergence Features for OTA-6

On the last day of July 2015, Canonical's Zoltán Balogh posted an important email on the Ubuntu Touch mailing list, informing us all about the work done lately on the Ubuntu SDK (Software Development Kit) software. Read more

Wifislax 4.11.1 Linux Distro Arrives with Linux Kernel 4.1.3 LTS, Xfce 4.12.3

The developers of the popular Wifislax Linux distribution based on the well-known Slackware operating system and built around the KDE and Xfce desktop environments announced the release of Wifislax 4.11.1. Read more

5 Best Linux Desktop Environments With Pros & Cons


Picture

If you are new to Linux then I'm sure you are giving up lots of time choosing Desktop Environment of your Linux Distribution. You are probably thinking to give a try to each one of them but that's very time consuming. Edit - There are other good DEs also That's why I'm reviewing the 5 Best Linux Desktop Environments with the pros & cons. The article gives you what you should know for choosing a DE. So let's get started!

Redis open source DBMS overview

Redis runs on Linux. Although the Redis project doesn't directly support Windows, Microsoft Open Technologies develops and maintains a Windows port targeting Win64. The Redis open source DBMS is available as a BSD license. The Redis community offers support through the official mailing list as well as #redis on Freenode. Commercial support is available through Pivotal, the official sponsor of Redis. Pivotal offers two levels of professional support. Read more