T0rn
Premium
join:2001-05-11
USA
3 edits |  Disadvantages of a rolling release distro?
Consider this topic an off-shoot from this thread: »Cloning for Linux
Perhaps a more appropriate title for this thread would be "Advantages of a non-rolling release distro?"
It's not a major hindrance to me to "upgrade" my distro of Ubuntu or openSUSE because, like a lot of the members here, I make a backup copy of my /home partition (just in case), and if I want a fully fledged contingency plan, I can also clone the drives/partitions.
However, to me this seems like an unnecessary task, since with rolling release distros (such as Gentoo), there is no drastic upgrade; only a bunch of updated packages to get you to the "current version" of the operating system.
Why doesn't every Linux distro follow this model? What benefit does the user get out of upgrading to definite versions of their distro?
For example, I used to be on openSUSE 11.0, and to take advantage of GNOME 2.24 (11.0 uses GNOME 2.22), I had to upgrade to openSUSE 11.1. It would have made more sense to me if I could just download/install the latest GNOME packages from the official repositories, without having to resort to installing an upgraded version of my operating system. (Granted, I read that it is possible now to use the Contrib/Factory repository to update GNOME to version 2.24 on openSUSE 11.0, but that is besides the point.)
If all Linux distros followed the rolling release cycle model, I believe it would save a lot of people the hassle (and even risk!) of doing dist-upgrades or installing a newer version of their operating system. Add to the fact that the rolling release distros would use a universal method of upgrading/updating, simply by using their respective package managers. Whereas with non-rolling release distros, each one has their own unique way of "safely" upgrading your current installation! Here are a couple of examples of what I mean, since both distros' new versions are just around the corner:
To upgrade openSUSE 11.1 to 11.2: »en.opensuse.org/Upgrade/11.2
To upgrade Ubuntu 9.04 to 9.10: »https://wiki.ubuntu.com/KarmicKoala/Tech···u%209.04
The only advantage I can think of for a non-rolling release distro is that it allows for "Long Term Support" (LTS) releases, in which stability and wide distribution are crucial in your situation. Even still, in theory, couldn't it be possible to release an LTS version of a distro with separate repositories that are independent of the rolling release version of the same distro?
In about six months, I'm sure many of us here are going to go through the same process of upgrading their distros and hoping for the best, while crossing our fingers in solidarity. |
|
KodiacZiller
join:2008-09-04
73368
1 edit | said by T0rn  :Why doesn't every Linux distro follow this model? What benefit does the user get out of upgrading to definite versions of their distro? Probably the main reason is because it's easier for the distro to control how a system behaves if they release new versions every 6-8 months. This way they can keep everyone on the same kernel version and keep them using only well tested packages. If they just keep "rolling" it is inevitable that people will begin breaking their systems with new kernel upgrades, etc.. If you've ever used Gentoo or Arch you will know what I am talking about. It is hard to keep a system from being broken for any long period of time. It's the nature of the beast with rolling distros and many advanced users prefer it.
A second reason is for marketing/advertising purposes. Canonical, Red Hat, Novell make all the magazines and blogs every time they release a new LiveCD and it keeps people interested. |
|
SUMware
Premium
join:2002-05-21
| reply to T0rn
Individual users have their own preferences. And many choices. I enjoy a clean upgrade, installing from scratch and rebuilding /home. I'll keep 11.1 functional with its separate /home partition intact, and install 11.2 into another partition where I'll redo /home. There I can play with ext4, different DEs, etc. while reinstalling 11.2 as often as I want while remaining fully Linux functional. I can run both openSUSEs along with WinXP, switching full-time to 11.2 when it's configured and I'm ready. Not a biggie. For me it's fun. YMMV. |
|
Kakalaky
Premium
join:2003-04-04
Broken Arrow, OK
 ·Cox HSI
 ·Cox VOIP
·Time Warner VOIP
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to T0rn
I use Arch for my home desktops and laptops mainly because it is a rolling release distro. I don't want to go through the major upgrade every six months on those systems but I do want the latest versions of the software I use.
For my home servers I use ubuntu server lts since it will just keep doing what I need it to do for years. I don't care about having the latest and greatest server side. I just want it to keep doing what I need with as little help from me as possible.
At work it's probably going to be redhat or solaris for anything major. |
|
jdong
Eat A Beaver, Save A Tree.
Premium
join:2002-07-09
Rochester, MI
clubs:  
| reply to T0rn
On a server, it's irritating to not have separation between updates that patch security/critical bugs without changing existing behavior, and upgrades that may change compatibility with respect to existing applications and configuration files.
For a desktop enthusiast at home, a rolling release distribution may be the right choice. But when we have something like MIT's 1000-desktop DebAthena rollout, or even a small server with 10-15 users, it's great to know that the updates you are getting meet a very specific set of criteria: »https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates
--
Ubuntu MOTU Developer and Forums Council |
|
firephoto
KDE
Premium
join:2003-03-18
 ·Verizon west (ex G..
| But that method essentially gives the developers an excuse for not updating things so when the release is out the next version is created and lives in a broken state from the start. Version 1.10 out today, tomorrow pre-2.04 is created-from-scratch. It's really impractical but accepted as something good it seems like. Imagine what could be done if the next distro version actually started from the current version plus updates! I know the perception is that this is what happens but that really isn't the case since distro version upgrades replace ALL packages.
The whole quality control thing exists in a state it is because versions are dissected into 6 months so you don't have to force upgrade anyone and can just tell them "it's fixed in version+1 so if you want the fix YOU upgrade". This simple method makes for laziness when it comes to true quality control because intead of saying version+1 is better everyone is told version+1 is optional so those making the new stuff have no motivation to satisfy distro quality issues for the most part. Those who change the least get the most benefits in this system and those who make the radical changes suffer.
Someone will say that this disected distro thing is necessary but it really isn't. Put the fault at the people who DON'T upgrade packages and remove the old versions from the distro repositories and you eliminate the support nightmare that you might propose is the problem. 
--
Say no to JAMS! |
|
jdong
Eat A Beaver, Save A Tree.
Premium
join:2002-07-09
Rochester, MI
clubs:
| NOWHERE in the SRU system is it implied that "if you want the fix upgrade to the next version". Through the combination of SRU's and Backports, it is intended that even new versions of packages be provided in an accessible manner to current users.
If this is not what you like, then fine, don't use Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora, or RedHat. Nobody is forcing you to. I, for one, will never see the day when I put another rolling-release distribution back into a production environment.
--
Ubuntu MOTU Developer and Forums Council |
|
reub2000
Premium
join:2001-12-28
Evanston, IL
| said by jdong :If this is not what you like, then fine, don't use Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora, or RedHat. Nobody is forcing you to. I, for one, will never see the day when I put another rolling-release distribution back into a production environment. QFT
Also, you are free to use the development branches maintained by these distributions.
--
My pbase gallery |
|
Kakalaky
Premium
join:2003-04-04
Broken Arrow, OK | reply to jdong
I love Arch but I would never use it in production. It's great for dev work though. |
|
firephoto
KDE
Premium
join:2003-03-18
·Verizon west (ex G..
| reply to jdong
said by jdong :NOWHERE in the SRU system is it implied that "if you want the fix upgrade to the next version". Through the combination of SRU's and Backports, it is intended that even new versions of packages be provided in an accessible manner to current users. If this is not what you like, then fine, don't use Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora, or RedHat. Nobody is forcing you to. I, for one, will never see the day when I put another rolling-release distribution back into a production environment. The whole SRU page ther basically says "bugs bugs bugs bugs bugs, maybe it will get an SRU, feature updates it could possibly get into backports". So the quality is so great that you tell the user to use a different repo for updates but if you do you're on your own because this repos is the "install unsupported updates' checkbox.
I know this whole perceived image of quality thing is out there with ubuntu and most people don't realize the hundreds of megabytes of changes that happen just a week or two before the final release... The point is, the magical release happens and single package fixes take WEEKS to be published but if it was the magical one week before release it would almost be instant. This is NOT a sign of quality but one of projecting the appearance of quality.
Also you state the 'upgrade to the next version for a fix' isn't valid in the SRU system and that's right because those kind of fixes will never see SRU's. Again, it's a great system for software that is updated rarely but when it comes to things that are big and actively developed the user suffers with old vesion till the next big distro release is finalized. It's like a dam where the water slowly builds up behind it till it's full and in six months the floodgates are opened and everyone downstream has to start over with what they get.
If the whole situation had to be explained with one word I would use 'regression' because that seems to be the buzzword keeping most updates form occuring where there are updates to be had. And this is entierly an end user what they point and click at daily sort of argument. The backend is and should be stable and fixed for security mostly but also adaptable to supporting changes for hardware when needed. The toolchain is rarely going to need a feature change to satisfy the point-n-clickers needs.
Oh and on a final note the SRU does seem to have one bold exception clause.
quote:
New versions of commercial software in the Canonical partner archive.
--
Say no to JAMS! |
|
jdong
Eat A Beaver, Save A Tree.
Premium
join:2002-07-09
Rochester, MI
clubs:
1 edit | said by firephoto :Oh and on a final note the SRU does seem to have one bold exception clause. quote:
New versions of commercial software in the Canonical partner archive.
Neither the Ubuntu developer community, nor the Ubuntu governance structures have any control over what Canonical does with their partner repository.
And now you are just trying to be difficult and inflammatory. I'm done here -- have a nice day.
--
Ubuntu MOTU Developer and Forums Council |
|
reub2000
Premium
join:2001-12-28
Evanston, IL
| said by jdong :said by firephoto :Oh and on a final note the SRU does seem to have one bold exception clause. quote:
New versions of commercial software in the Canonical partner archive.
Neither the Ubuntu developer community, nor the Ubuntu governance structures have any control over what Canonical does with their partner repository. And now you are just trying to be difficult and inflammatory. I'm done here -- have a nice day. Yep. Posting before this gets locked. If he really wanted newer software, he'd use the backports or compile it himself.
--
My pbase gallery |
|
firephoto
KDE
Premium
join:2003-03-18
·Verizon west (ex G..
| said by reub2000 :Yep. Posting before this gets locked. If he really wanted newer software, he'd use the backports or compile it himself. The point is, there's a deliberate effort to make some users go outside the support boundries if they want certain updates.
Backports are not supported.
PPA's are not supported.
So to get support you have to not update. Feature updates do not hurt stability but too many people like to spread FUD to the contrary.
And I really appreciate you imply this a a just me issue. I'm not alone by far. I would guess every person releasing software doesn't go out of their way to make revisions that purposely break things and everytime a popular piece of software is updated there are countless people asking in various places about how they can get this update. Linux fragments the end distribution of software because most developers are not going to go out of their way to build binary packages for every distro and version of distro out there because it would be crazy to do so. For windows you need one package and for OS X you can make one package and really that's the only way to distribute to them... but hey this is LINUX so there's always someone to tell someone else to just "...compile it..."
Sorry for not being selfish too and wanting other people to benefit from new software versions more than once every six months.
--
Say no to JAMS! |
|
chrisretusn
Retired
Premium
join:2007-08-13
Philippines
| reply to T0rn
said by T0rn :Perhaps a more appropriate title for this thread would be "Advantages of a non-rolling release distro?" Interesting question. Since 1993, with a few exceptions I have only used one distribution. In my opinion my distribution follows both models. If I want rolling upgrades I use the current tree, if I want non-rolling I use the stable tree.
A big advantage of a non-rolling distribution is stability. Not constantly updating to stay with the latest and greatest releases. The only updating to a non-rolling distribution should be security and patch updates. I can run a stable system for several years without having to worry about upgrading to the next numbered version.
Along those lines of older, by several versions, another advantage is being able to jump from older to new in one step (figuratively of course). I have one machine that, up until this month was a September 2005 version of my distribution. Two weeks ago I decided to make the move to the latest version. It was a lot simpler to pop in a DVD and install fresh, then migrate over my configurations. I was up and running in short order. I could have gone the update path, but that would have been a lot more work.
Rolling releases are great if you want the latest stuff. But sometimes stability is more important. That and if there is no reason to upgrade (other that security stuff) why do it. Not everyone needs to have the current version.
If do I want to go with rolling upgrade in my distribution, I use the current tree. I can stay up to date with the latest of my distribution. I was already at the newest version of my distribution when it was released on another of my boxes that I keep "current".
One of the greatest advantage of Linux in my opinion is choice, No single distribution is exactly the same. There is a model, system that fits just about everyones needs. I would hate to see all Linux distributions do it the same way. I believe a certain non-Linux competitor does it that way. Seems to me there is a lot of hassle involved in upgrading. It's not about hassle, it about choice.
In about six months, I'm sure many of us here are going to go through the same process of upgrading their distros and hoping for the best, while crossing our fingers in solidarity. I'll bet the are also many of us the will not be going through that process in six months. I know I don't plan on it and sleep well knowing that I won't have to, but can if I want to.
--
Chris
Living in Paradise!! |
|
Selenia
join:2006-09-22
Pittsfield, MA
·Verizon Online DSL
·RoadRunner Cable
2 edits | reply to T0rn
Doing version releases, like say Debian or Ubuntu, has some distinct advantages. People can know exactly what is going to be installed when they fire up the CD, which is then updated and patched. It also allows a stable system for those who need one, but those who want to test the cutting edge can do so by downloading a beta or testing version. I can say from experience that sticking with testing versions feels almost like rolling updates. Major clumps of packages tend to change daily. Not everyone likes all this change, so then there are stable versions. I personally have nothing against rolling update distros, but they just do not fit every situation. Especially on systems with compiled software you don't want to break and redo every other day or week.
Edit: Oh and have you tired using ppas where you need newer software? I tend to do that for things like gfx drivers, as great strides are being made with open source drivers and that's all I'll use these days. |
|
Gomez
Been drinking brew for breakfast?
Premium,Mod
join:2001-02-21
Atlanta, GA
clubs:
·Speakeasy
Host:
Pub Games
It is the economy,..
Clearwire
| reply to T0rn
I'm production deployed on Gentoo, and the release cycle is key.
There are 12 packages I actually care about. A change to any of them is a large regression, which is expensive. They are updated as needed, but it's built into the schedule when that happens, which is rare.
There's no way I could keep a reasonable timeline if I needed a full OS update and regression just to patch one of the 12.
--
It's a fact : Chicks dig Mafia players.
'Wanna help buy a goat?' - »www.kiva.org
|
|
Gomez
Been drinking brew for breakfast?
Premium,Mod
join:2001-02-21
Atlanta, GA
clubs:
·Speakeasy
Host:
Pub Games
It is the economy,..
Clearwire
| reply to Selenia
said by Selenia :Doing version releases, like say Debian or Ubuntu, has some distinct advantages. People can know exactly what is going to be installed when they fire up the CD, which is then updated and patched. It also allows a stable system for those who need one, but those who want to test the cutting edge can do so by downloading a beta or testing version. I can say from experience that sticking with testing versions feels almost like rolling updates. Major clumps of packages tend to change daily. Not everyone likes all this change, so then there are stable versions. I personally have nothing against rolling update distros, but they just do not fit every situation. Especially on systems with compiled software you don't want to break and redo every other day or week. Edit: Oh and have you tired using ppas where you need newer software? I tend to do that for things like gfx drivers, as great strides are being made with open source drivers and that's all I'll use these days. I'll disagree: »CentOS updates break MP3 play?
Massive upgrades confuse the user as they have no knowledge of the inter-dependancies.
--
It's a fact : Chicks dig Mafia players.
'Wanna help buy a goat?' - »www.kiva.org
|
|
Selenia
join:2006-09-22
Pittsfield, MA
·Verizon Online DSL
·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit | Ok here's a for-instance. Newbies do need less changes, so if they decided to choose say, Ubuntu, they would choose one marked LTS and keep it for its term of support(3 years). That 3 year support would also be good for company networks. Those who would want to advance but with an emphasis on stability will follow the regular releases. Those who want to be on the cutting edge will keep up with installing betas. All the cutting edge updates are dumped into the betas on an almost rolling basis, while current releases change much less. Your package manager can tune it a bit by say holding back troublesome packages until a fix is made or the cause of the issue resolved. It just gives users a clear choice on how ambitious their distro is on updating. Pure rolling updates is a clear choice, as well. I think it increases the risk of *something* breaking, but will agree it is likely to be less than a distribution upgrade(especially with the -d flag).
Edit: Most repos for CentOS are plain horrible. Blame the maintainers for that, not the concept used for updates. Sorry RHL/CentOS fanbois, but it's true. I ran several servers with CentOS and I do like the OS, don't get me wrong. I just compiled all my stuff and kept the source on hand, should a recompile be needed due to change in dependencies. |
|
satmanmo
join:2009-09-28
Portageville, MO
·New Wave Communica..
 ·WildBlue
| reply to T0rn
No one,as far as you have indicated,holds a gun to your head,and coerces you to up-grade.The LTS releases generally are based on the then current release.As the releases continue forward,the repositories are are changed to reflect that specific release.It is always better though,to do a fresh install to a new release,than an in-place upgrade.If a specific release works for you,keep using it.Being overly concerned with release schedules serves no significant purpose. |
|
Gomez
Been drinking brew for breakfast?
Premium,Mod
join:2001-02-21
Atlanta, GA
clubs:
·Speakeasy
Host:
Pub Games
It is the economy,..
Clearwire
| reply to Selenia
said by Selenia :Ok here's a for-instance. Newbies do need less changes, so if they decided to choose say, Ubuntu, they would choose one marked LTS and keep it for its term of support(3 years). That 3 year support would also be good for company networks. Those who would want to advance but with an emphasis on stability will follow the regular releases. Those who want to be on the cutting edge will keep up with installing betas. All the cutting edge updates are dumped into the betas on an almost rolling basis, while current releases change much less. Your package manager can tune it a bit by say holding back troublesome packages until a fix is made or the cause of the issue resolved. It just gives users a clear choice on how ambitious their distro is on updating. Pure rolling updates is a clear choice, as well. I think it increases the risk of *something* breaking, but will agree it is likely to be less than a distribution upgrade(especially with the -d flag). Edit: Most repos for CentOS are plain horrible. Blame the maintainers for that, not the concept used for updates. Sorry RHL/CentOS fanbois, but it's true. I ran several servers with CentOS and I do like the OS, don't get me wrong. I just compiled all my stuff and kept the source on hand, should a recompile be needed due to change in dependencies. As you mention Ubuntu, I guess we move here: »Early adopters bloodied by Ubuntu's Karmic Koala
--
It's a fact : Chicks dig Mafia players.
'Wanna help buy a goat?' - »www.kiva.org
|
|
