4 ms·

There's a middle ground that's kind of lost in this argument: create a 'rolling' distribution and cut-and-stabilize LTS releases from it. This is kind of how I

There's a middle ground that's kind of lost in this argument: create a 'rolling' distribution and cut-and-stabilize LTS releases from it. This is kind of how I treat 'testing' in Debian and I've only seen a problem once in 5 years. If you want stability and consistency, use an LTS release. If you want more recent software, use the 'rolling' release. While this is mentioned in TFA ("edge"), it's glossed over.

fuzzix 14y ago
Just to echo this, I do much the same with Slackware. I use -current on some machines. Every time a release is pending, work on -current slows down (or does it ramp up?) and it is stablised. It's essentially a development release rather than being explicitly labelled "rolling" (and, in fact, its use as a day-to-day distribution is generally considered A Bad Thing if you're not a Slackware developer/tester). It just happens to have the bonus of also being a pretty bleeding-edge, yet stable rolling release. So, it's possible to achieve both a rolling release and "stable", versioned releases.
- mhurron 14y ago
  Slackware-current is basically as stable as Fedora is at any given time so it's hard to really discourage its use. Honestly, Slackware is almost a RHEL/Fedora type ecosystem when just taking about official packages. Slackware-current gets new stuff, Slackware releases only get bug fixes, and not too many of them at that.
  - jackalope 14y ago
    I'm not sure I agree with that comparison. Slackware-current will become the next stable release once all of the kinks have been worked out. Is RHEL ever really a snapshot of Fedora?
    - mhurron 14y ago
      > Is RHEL ever really a snapshot of Fedora? Basically yes, Fedora is Red Hat getting free testing of features and when it's time to create a new RHEL release, they grab a Fedora release, set it in stone and work from that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux Red Hat Linux 6.2 → Red Hat Linux 6.2E Red Hat Linux 7.2 → Red Hat Enterprise Linux 2.1 Red Hat Linux 10 beta 1 → Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3 Fedora Core 3 → Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4 Fedora Core 6 → Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 Fedora 12, 13 → Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6
      - jackalope 14y ago
        From the same article: RHEL trees are forked off the Fedora repository, and released after a substantial stabilization and quality assurance effort. Which adds a quote from the Fedora Project: Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a commercial enterprise operating system and has its own set of test phases including alpha and beta releases which are separate and distinct from Fedora development. And on that page[1] it states that RHEL6 is based on a "Mix of Fedora 12 Fedora 13 and several modifications". Sorry to be pedantic, but that's significantly different than the Slackware model. Maybe it's just PTSD; I fled from RH in the old days onto the path that led to Slackware, so any comparison makes me touchy. [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux?rd=RHEL#History https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux?rd=R...

fuzzix 14y ago

Just to echo this, I do much the same with Slackware. I use -current on some machines. Every time a release is pending, work on -current slows down (or does it ramp up?) and it is stablised. It's essentially a development release rather than being explicitly labelled "rolling" (and, in fact, its use as a day-to-day distribution is generally considered A Bad Thing if you're not a Slackware developer/tester). It just happens to have the bonus of also being a pretty bleeding-edge, yet stable rolling release. So, it's possible to achieve both a rolling release and "stable", versioned releases.

mhurron 14y ago
Slackware-current is basically as stable as Fedora is at any given time so it's hard to really discourage its use. Honestly, Slackware is almost a RHEL/Fedora type ecosystem when just taking about official packages. Slackware-current gets new stuff, Slackware releases only get bug fixes, and not too many of them at that.
- jackalope 14y ago
  I'm not sure I agree with that comparison. Slackware-current will become the next stable release once all of the kinks have been worked out. Is RHEL ever really a snapshot of Fedora?
  - mhurron 14y ago
    > Is RHEL ever really a snapshot of Fedora? Basically yes, Fedora is Red Hat getting free testing of features and when it's time to create a new RHEL release, they grab a Fedora release, set it in stone and work from that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux Red Hat Linux 6.2 → Red Hat Linux 6.2E Red Hat Linux 7.2 → Red Hat Enterprise Linux 2.1 Red Hat Linux 10 beta 1 → Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3 Fedora Core 3 → Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4 Fedora Core 6 → Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 Fedora 12, 13 → Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6
    - jackalope 14y ago
      From the same article: RHEL trees are forked off the Fedora repository, and released after a substantial stabilization and quality assurance effort. Which adds a quote from the Fedora Project: Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a commercial enterprise operating system and has its own set of test phases including alpha and beta releases which are separate and distinct from Fedora development. And on that page[1] it states that RHEL6 is based on a "Mix of Fedora 12 Fedora 13 and several modifications". Sorry to be pedantic, but that's significantly different than the Slackware model. Maybe it's just PTSD; I fled from RH in the old days onto the path that led to Slackware, so any comparison makes me touchy. [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux?rd=RHEL#History https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux?rd=R...