On Friday, 3 October 2014 at 11:51:08 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Friday, 3 October 2014 at 11:31:07 UTC, eles wrote:
The former attempt stability (because all packages are tested
together, along with their interactions), while the latter
attempt cutting-edge software (you update software as it gets
produced).
This generally true but not entirely true. Rolling release
model also implies testing of package inter-operation but any
guarantees only apply to versions that match specific
repository snapshot - most problems arise from trying to update
some of packages but not all. At least this is the case for
Arch.
Yes, kinda true, however there is a compromise between the
dailyness of the updates and the depth of tests.
Release-style distributions have one more difference: they
guarantee support for the provided software during the lifetime
of the distribution. They might not provide new versions, but
will provide security patches.
Even if a software is abandoned by its own author one day after
the release gets out, at least in theory, the release team will
continue to provide patches to ensure that the software maintains
the interoperability and the security level with the rest of the
distribution.
That alone and is quite an effort, but it matters for entreprise
customers.
Rolling distributions are more like: "well, that software is not
developed anymore, either you maintaint yourself, either you
stick with the old version at your own risk."
