3 ms·

And I think you didn't understand my point. Sometimes these security fixes will not be compatible with the application you are running. It will usually not be a

by yxhuvud 13y ago

And I think you didn't understand my point. Sometimes these security fixes will not be compatible with the application you are running. It will usually not be an issue if every single line of code you run is from the distro manager, but I've had CentOS security fixes breaking my apps because the security fix forced some other way of doing things, and because they didn't bother backport the subsequent bug fixes to the security fixes. Yes, it may be less work with a stable system. I'm not arguing that part, but it is an idealized pipe dream to install once and then let the system be. You still have to have the machinery to do maintenance work, and you still need proper testing. Security fixes are NOT exempt from that in any way.

SwellJoe 13y ago
Certainly, software is complicated, and we're always managing risk and complexity when choosing our tools. The reality is that CentOS is a more stable platform than most of the alternatives. It doesn't provide cutting edge software across the board (though it is possible to get newer versions of common tools that people want to stay on top of, like languages), but it does provide a reasonable level of confidence that what you deployed years ago will continue to run today. Moreso than any other Linux distro out there (in my, not at all limited[1], experience), most likely. And, the security concerns you raised are the ones I wanted to address in my original reply to you; you alleged that CentOS/RHEL provided old and thus insecure software. I wanted to make it clear that's not the case; all software is subject to bugs, including security bugs, but CentOS/RHEL are not shipping software with known exploits. It gets fixed, along with the upstream. In fact, the RHEL developers are often providing the upstream fixes, as well; Red Hat employs huge swaths of FOSS developers...really good ones. 1-I work on systems management software that is installed a million times a year, on every Linux distro and nearly every UNIX variant, and have done so for ~15 years. I don't know everything, but I know which Linux distros provide a stable platform and which ones have a good security record.

by yxhuvud 13y ago

SwellJoe 13y ago

Certainly, software is complicated, and we're always managing risk and complexity when choosing our tools. The reality is that CentOS is a more stable platform than most of the alternatives. It doesn't provide cutting edge software across the board (though it is possible to get newer versions of common tools that people want to stay on top of, like languages), but it does provide a reasonable level of confidence that what you deployed years ago will continue to run today. Moreso than any other Linux distro out there (in my, not at all limited[1], experience), most likely. And, the security concerns you raised are the ones I wanted to address in my original reply to you; you alleged that CentOS/RHEL provided old and thus insecure software. I wanted to make it clear that's not the case; all software is subject to bugs, including security bugs, but CentOS/RHEL are not shipping software with known exploits. It gets fixed, along with the upstream. In fact, the RHEL developers are often providing the upstream fixes, as well; Red Hat employs huge swaths of FOSS developers...really good ones. 1-I work on systems management software that is installed a million times a year, on every Linux distro and nearly every UNIX variant, and have done so for ~15 years. I don't know everything, but I know which Linux distros provide a stable platform and which ones have a good security record.