4 ms·
In my experience, Redhat's security updates are slower than Canonical's most of the time.
by nightfly 7y ago
In 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]