5 ms·
Non-IT person here but their security updates seem very nice if you are dealing with systems that store sensitive data?
by romanows 7y ago
Non-IT person here but their security updates seem very nice if you are dealing with systems that store sensitive data?
- nightfly 7y agoIn my experience, Redhat's security updates are slower than Canonical's most of the time.
- mbesto 7y agoI don't necessarily equate "slower" with "bad" when it comes to any patches. My speculation is that Redhat may more thoroughly test security updates.
- smcleod 7y agoExactly, I’ve found RedHat (and CentOS)‘s security patching for be very well tested and packages are often provided with far more sane and safer defaults than say Ubuntu. Additionally SELinux with RHEL/CentOS has excellent coverage and tooling, if you want to harden your servers it’s a good platform.
- MisterOctober 7y agoyep -- Centos [which distro I favor for servers] is verrry slow with patches, upgrades, and other additions -- but it is 100% rock solid with no surprises. I use other distros for desktop and various uses, but for servers, I stick with CentOS for stability [or Debian, if CentOS not available]
- einpoklum 7y agoMeaningfully better than other distributions?
- izacus 7y agoMeaningfully longer. Ubuntu/Debian will demand you update the whole distribution sooner than Red Hat. And there's not a lot of people insane enough to upgrade full OS on a train, x-ray machine, radiation treatment machine, powerplant control system or particle accelerator every two or three years. Especially if software running on them is proprietary and wasn't certified for new set of dependencies.
- Ensorceled 7y agoExactly. The FDA is willing to dance around security updates but updating the OS completely triggers all sorts of expensive reviews and testing.
- techntoke 7y agoStable updates are nice in general. If you're looking for a distro with old software with bare updates then use RHEL. If you're looking for a modern distro with frequent stable updates then use Arch.