3 ms·
It can be frustrating, but it's almost always worth it in a serious production environment. I have my own anecdote: I have serveral home servers running CentOS
by awill 6y ago
It can be frustrating, but it's almost always worth it in a serious production environment.
I have my own anecdote:
I have serveral home servers running CentOS 7 (set up nearly 6 years ago). I update all the time and I've had zero issues. Literally nothing has ever broken. My previous servers ran CentOS 6, and were equally reliable.
My desktop runs Arch Linux, and gets ever kernel dot release. I've had an unbootable system at least 5 times over the last 5 years, requiring me to boot from a flash drive to downgrade a package, or edit a grub config. As you can imagine, it's bitten me at the worst possible time (when I really don't have time to troubleshoot).
I know some people advocate for Arch on the server, but to me that seems crazy. Nothing against Arch. It's great for a desktop, and I knowingly trade off some reliability/stability for the latest stuff. I wouldn't make that trade on a server that hosted important stuff.
- ryanisnan 6y agoI second this. I was running antergos on my desktop for a while and it is a fantastic desktop OS, if you have time to deal with the inevitable boot failures.
- gbrown 6y agoFedora seems like a sensible middle ground.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- hnra 6y agoI would recommend keeping an lts kernel around when running arch. It’s not much harder than pacman-S linux-lts.
- awill 6y agoThat probably helps, though many of my issues have been other problems, like xorg, the nvidia driver, grub (or now systemd-boot)