Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Early Fedora 26 Features To Talk About: PHP 7.1, OpenSSL 1.1 & More

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    Originally posted by TeoLinuX View Post
    I can't understand current non rolling distros.
    i know that with Arch and similar a low level system change can break all the distro, but Fedora or Ubuntu (unless you use external repositories) don't even update non system applications!
    You get the distro as a whole with all the packages in it.
    I remember having to wait a semester release of Ubuntu just to have a new version of Firefox. Come on.
    Also OpenSUSE Leap (non-rolling) keeps updated stuff where it matters, I have Firefox 49, and yesterday or something I got an update to thunderbird.
    Media players and codecs receive very frequent updates from packman repo, too.

    This behaviour you see is a Debian/Ubuntu-only thing.

    Comment


    • #12
      Good to hear that Fedora is more rapid than Ubuntu in adopting newer software and less conservative in upgrading apps. Last time that i tried it I think it was version 8 or something, and I was unimpressed.

      That said, it still surprises me that one has to wait a distro upgrade to change some parts or specific apps that can otherwise be updated with some external/community/unofficial repositories.

      Isn't it dangerous to wait so much time, in case some vulnerability with older versions is known?
      I'm no advocate of Gentoo or Arch: they are on the other side of the spectrum ( I use Manjaro and I admit that still some upgrade breaks the system requiring some console intervention)

      I don't even say that distros should adopt a *.*.0 kernel or a -RC toolchain.
      I'd just like to see a distro that has a more conservative approach on core elements, and a second team for "leaf" apps that releases more often.
      From the feedback I got here, seems Fedora is more like that.
      I always thought of it like an Ubuntu with RPMs packages. Good to know I was wrong.

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by TeoLinuX View Post
        Good to hear that Fedora is more rapid than Ubuntu in adopting newer software and less conservative in upgrading apps. Last time that i tried it I think it was version 8 or something, and I was unimpressed.

        That said, it still surprises me that one has to wait a distro upgrade to change some parts or specific apps that can otherwise be updated with some external/community/unofficial repositories.

        Isn't it dangerous to wait so much time, in case some vulnerability with older versions is known?
        If there are known security issues, any reasonable distribution including Fedora will provide updates to them within the lifecycle of the release.

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by TeoLinuX View Post
          That said, it still surprises me that one has to wait a distro upgrade to change some parts or specific apps that can otherwise be updated with some external/community/unofficial repositories.
          Because it's dangerous. Let's say there's a new version of, say, OpenSSL comes out. You *could* just build an RPM and push it out... but lots of other packages depend on OpenSSL. How much time do you want to spend testing all of those dependencies (and not just the direct ones) to be confident you're not introducing some obscure compatibility bug that will leave (e.g) 5% of your users unable to connect to the internet, etc?

          Not saying rolling-releases are a bad thing, but that's a balance that needs to be struck - the more frequently you do releases, the less time you can afford to spent testing those releases. And while more frequent releases are usually smaller releases, that's not a direct correspondence to the impact of the change, and how much testing should be done.

          Originally posted by TeoLinuX View Post
          Isn't it dangerous to wait so much time, in case some vulnerability with older versions is known?
          It would be - if those distros were completely useless, and didn't provide bugfixes for whatever package versions are included in a supported version of the distro. Because forcing users onto the latest version of a package - without much compatibility testing, because you're working under urgency on a security issue - isn't usually the best option.

          Comment

          Working...
          X