5 ms·
Being a long term arch user this is very funny to me. When open source developers make a rolling release it's a niche techie fetish but when CentOS does it sud
by cosmiccatnap 5y ago
Being a long term arch user this is very funny to me.
When open source developers make a rolling release it's a niche techie fetish but when CentOS does it suddenly it's "enterprise" it's wild what companies will pass off as "production ready" to managers.
- RedShift1 5y agoThat's entirely untrue. There was a large outcry after the announcement of CentOS Stream and many people moved to Rocky and Alma. Everybody knows rolling release is not "enterprise" and "production ready".
- nix23 5y ago>Everybody knows rolling release is not "enterprise" and "production ready" It really depends, if you want to install things like a big oracle db, then a classical LTS distro is better. But if your instances have short/medium lifecycles and good tests in place, then a rolling distro can even be a time saver (because you migrate your scripts/confs all the time a bit, and nothing massive like from a 10yo release to the new one)
- ungamed 5y agoCentOS is not a rolling release. CentOS stream and has effectively 'switched places' with RHEL. It will get patches first, then RHEL will inherit them. The only visible difference I can see, is that embargoed bug fixes will hit RHEL first before CentOS stream. This apparently is very difficult for people to understand.
- matthews2 5y agoThe upset over CentOS Stream is over the top. It's no different to enabling the bullseye-updates repository in Debian. You get the updates from the next point release early, but it never contains breaking changes.
- jhgb 5y agoIs Tumbleweed actually comparable to Arch? Tumbleweed has frequent distribution snapshots, but they're still whole distribution upgrades. They're supposed to be consistent in a way that Pacman to my understanding has no concept for.