ML
    • Recent
    • Categories
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Groups
    • Register
    • Login

    Discussion on LTS OSes

    Water Closet
    12
    136
    8.5k
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • scottalanmillerS
      scottalanmiller @IRJ
      last edited by

      @IRJ said in Linux OS Thoughts?:

      You can argue that bleeding edge is better, but I want to know how.

      Basic software engineering tells us this.... products that are more maintained and "alive" naturally win over those that are stagnant. LTS is a marketing term to make "stagnant" sound viable. It's only beneficial to ghost ship or very poorly updated software. As a software engineer, I only use LTS to screw the customer, never to make good software. It's so I can get away without maintaining or patching. It's so the risk is the customer's not mine, but the risk is magnified.

      Bleeding edge is the WRONG term and nothing to do with what we are discussing. We are talking about LTS (aka stagnant) versus Current support. Ubuntu and Fedora are not rolling, nor bleeding. They are simply a six month update cycle compared to a longer update cycle.

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
      • IRJI
        IRJ @scottalanmiller
        last edited by

        @scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:

        @IRJ said in Linux OS Thoughts?:

        Literally all the NIST, CIS, etc standards point to LTS and dont have benchmarks for Bleeding Edge.

        And this, in turn, makes them complete and utter jokes with no place in a production environment. If they don't know computing basics (and they don't) they shouldn't be making recommendations. We know that these agencies are inept and at best decades behind the times. That they recommend LTS tells us a lot about if that's a good idea. Remember until just two years ago NIST was recommending insecure passwords because they couldn't keep up with decades old basic computer knowledge.

        A good portion of business that have any compliance requirements dont have a choice. Pretty much businesses that have any kinds of audits are going to need to meet benchmarks even if they arent specific to CIS or NIST. Nobody is able to provide valid benchmarks for Bleeding Edge as they change so much.

        scottalanmillerS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • stacksofplatesS
          stacksofplates @scottalanmiller
          last edited by stacksofplates

          @scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:

          @IRJ said in Linux OS Thoughts?:

          Literally all the NIST, CIS, etc standards point to LTS and dont have benchmarks for Bleeding Edge.

          And this, in turn, makes them complete and utter jokes with no place in a production environment. If they don't know computing basics (and they don't) they shouldn't be making recommendations. We know that these agencies are inept and at best decades behind the times. That they recommend LTS tells us a lot about if that's a good idea. Remember until just two years ago NIST was recommending insecure passwords because they couldn't keep up with decades old basic computer knowledge.

          The hardening for RHEL is written by Red Hat, not NIST. So the benchmarks are made by the people that make the software...

          stacksofplatesS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
          • scottalanmillerS
            scottalanmiller @IRJ
            last edited by

            @IRJ said in Linux OS Thoughts?:

            Negatives about bleeding edge:
            Often not supported
            No available benchmarks
            Higher chance for bugs as it gets untested releases

            None of these are true for what we are discussing. They are often MORE supported (Ubuntu they are the ONLY option for what IT calls support, and as that is the biggest OS, this is a big deal.) RHEL gives more phone support to LTS, but more coding support to current.

            Benchmarks are easily available.

            Higher chance of bugs based on what? I don't believe this to be true, especially in real world usage. It sounds plausible, but doesn't really hold up.

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • stacksofplatesS
              stacksofplates @stacksofplates
              last edited by

              @stacksofplates said in Linux OS Thoughts?:

              @scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:

              @IRJ said in Linux OS Thoughts?:

              Literally all the NIST, CIS, etc standards point to LTS and dont have benchmarks for Bleeding Edge.

              And this, in turn, makes them complete and utter jokes with no place in a production environment. If they don't know computing basics (and they don't) they shouldn't be making recommendations. We know that these agencies are inept and at best decades behind the times. That they recommend LTS tells us a lot about if that's a good idea. Remember until just two years ago NIST was recommending insecure passwords because they couldn't keep up with decades old basic computer knowledge.

              The hardening for RHEL is written by Red Hat, not NIST. So the benchmarks are made by the people that make the software...

              Coincidentally I know this because I've contributed directly to SCAP remediations.

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
              • scottalanmillerS
                scottalanmiller @IRJ
                last edited by

                @IRJ said in Linux OS Thoughts?:

                @scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:

                @IRJ said in Linux OS Thoughts?:

                Literally all the NIST, CIS, etc standards point to LTS and dont have benchmarks for Bleeding Edge.

                And this, in turn, makes them complete and utter jokes with no place in a production environment. If they don't know computing basics (and they don't) they shouldn't be making recommendations. We know that these agencies are inept and at best decades behind the times. That they recommend LTS tells us a lot about if that's a good idea. Remember until just two years ago NIST was recommending insecure passwords because they couldn't keep up with decades old basic computer knowledge.

                A good portion of business that have any compliance requirements dont have a choice. Pretty much businesses that have any kinds of audits are going to need to meet benchmarks even if they arent specific to CIS or NIST. Nobody is able to provide valid benchmarks for Bleeding Edge as they change so much.

                That's unrelated to what is "good" or "secure". Politics and good business are opponents, not partners.

                IRJI 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                • IRJI
                  IRJ @scottalanmiller
                  last edited by

                  @scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:

                  @IRJ said in Linux OS Thoughts?:

                  @scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:

                  @IRJ said in Linux OS Thoughts?:

                  Literally all the NIST, CIS, etc standards point to LTS and dont have benchmarks for Bleeding Edge.

                  And this, in turn, makes them complete and utter jokes with no place in a production environment. If they don't know computing basics (and they don't) they shouldn't be making recommendations. We know that these agencies are inept and at best decades behind the times. That they recommend LTS tells us a lot about if that's a good idea. Remember until just two years ago NIST was recommending insecure passwords because they couldn't keep up with decades old basic computer knowledge.

                  A good portion of business that have any compliance requirements dont have a choice. Pretty much businesses that have any kinds of audits are going to need to meet benchmarks even if they arent specific to CIS or NIST. Nobody is able to provide valid benchmarks for Bleeding Edge as they change so much.

                  That's unrelated to what is "good" or "secure". Politics and good business are opponents, not partners.

                  Sometimes you need both. Without requirements we would be in much worse shape. There has to be an audit process in place, and they has to be realistic time for it. Most of audit checks make perfect sense. Sure there is always weird requirements, but overall they surely are considered best practice.

                  scottalanmillerS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • scottalanmillerS
                    scottalanmiller @WrCombs
                    last edited by

                    @WrCombs said in Linux OS Thoughts?:

                    @IRJ said in Linux OS Thoughts?:

                    Stick to LTS versions (...hides)

                    what is LTS Versions vs. Bleeding Edge

                    That's not a comparison. They are saying Bleeding Edge in an attempt to discredit "Current Releases." Bleeding edge is something wholly different.

                    LTS: Long Term Support. These are OS releases that are selected (every major vendor does this... Windows, RHEL, Ubuntu, Suse, etc.) to get "support" for a really long time with a guarantee that the code versions won't change. It's a locked release that you can install and use and get "support" for a long time. I say "support" because it's not always what it sounds like. Ubuntu doesn't offer anything we'd call actual support for their LTS, it's all a marketing thing not a tech thing.

                    Current Release: This is the current product release from a vendor. Windows, RH, Ubuntu, Suse all offer these. Windows, RH, and Ubuntu all have a ~6 month release cycle for current. Suse alone uses a rolling release model. None of these imply anything like cutting or bleeding edge, those terms would denote a misunderstanding of what releases are. A current release can easily include software that is decades old, nothing about it implies a faster release of packages. And if it did, Ubuntu LTS is also "Current" every 18 months, so if bleeding edge is bad, then their LTS is also bad because they would overlap.

                    Current selections of both....

                    Windows:
                    LTS: Windows LTSB 1809
                    Current: 1903

                    Red Hat:
                    LTS: CentOS 8 / RHEL 8
                    Current: Fedora 30

                    Ubuntu:
                    LTS: 1804
                    Current: 1910

                    Suse:
                    LTS: OpenSuse Leap
                    Current: OpenSuse Tumbleweed

                    DashrenderD WrCombsW 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 2
                    • scottalanmillerS
                      scottalanmiller @IRJ
                      last edited by

                      @IRJ said in Linux OS Thoughts?:

                      @scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:

                      @IRJ said in Linux OS Thoughts?:

                      @scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:

                      @IRJ said in Linux OS Thoughts?:

                      Literally all the NIST, CIS, etc standards point to LTS and dont have benchmarks for Bleeding Edge.

                      And this, in turn, makes them complete and utter jokes with no place in a production environment. If they don't know computing basics (and they don't) they shouldn't be making recommendations. We know that these agencies are inept and at best decades behind the times. That they recommend LTS tells us a lot about if that's a good idea. Remember until just two years ago NIST was recommending insecure passwords because they couldn't keep up with decades old basic computer knowledge.

                      A good portion of business that have any compliance requirements dont have a choice. Pretty much businesses that have any kinds of audits are going to need to meet benchmarks even if they arent specific to CIS or NIST. Nobody is able to provide valid benchmarks for Bleeding Edge as they change so much.

                      That's unrelated to what is "good" or "secure". Politics and good business are opponents, not partners.

                      Sometimes you need both. Without requirements we would be in much worse shape. There has to be an audit process in place, and they has to be realistic time for it. Most of audit checks make perfect sense. Sure there is always weird requirements, but overall they surely are considered best practice.

                      Sometimes you have to bow to politics over what is good for the business all things being equal. The law often demands or promotes reckless behaviour (like allowing faxes under HIPAA... absolutely criminal if the law didn't promote it.)

                      But that doesn't make the practice good, only required.

                      IRJI 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                      • DashrenderD
                        Dashrender @stacksofplates
                        last edited by

                        @stacksofplates said in Linux OS Thoughts?:

                        @Dashrender said in Linux OS Thoughts?:

                        @DustinB3403 said in Linux OS Thoughts?:

                        @scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:

                        @WrCombs said in Linux OS Thoughts?:

                        @DustinB3403 said in Linux OS Thoughts?:

                        @WrCombs said in Linux OS Thoughts?:

                        Learn linux - But with out the " "

                        Okay so let's break this down one more step. What about Linux do you want to learn?

                        If you looked at Linux like the day you go your learners permit, it's just learning what the tools are and how to use them. Is there something specific you are wanting to do with Linux?

                        looking at Linux Administration.

                        Oh, in the case, installing RHEL 8 is probably the best place to start.

                        Spend money on RHEL, really? When we were just telling him to not spend money on Windows 10 Pro for his work provided computer.

                        In a lab/home environment, sure that makes sense, but this is discussing his career. Which I would lean towards Fedora as a jump point.

                        RHEL is still free (as far as I know) it's just a HUGE PITA to get your hands on if you don't buy support for it.

                        You can get it for free through a dev account, but it's offered through CentOS as the free version unless you build it from source yourself.

                        Other than a name - what is the difference between CentOS and RHEL? it's my understanding that RHEL is a less rev'ed version of CentOS, which is a less rev'ed version of Fedora... in essence, it's LTS.

                        stacksofplatesS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • scottalanmillerS
                          scottalanmiller @DustinB3403
                          last edited by

                          @DustinB3403 said in Linux OS Thoughts?:

                          @Dashrender said in Linux OS Thoughts?:

                          @DustinB3403 said in Linux OS Thoughts?:

                          @scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:

                          @WrCombs said in Linux OS Thoughts?:

                          @DustinB3403 said in Linux OS Thoughts?:

                          @WrCombs said in Linux OS Thoughts?:

                          Learn linux - But with out the " "

                          Okay so let's break this down one more step. What about Linux do you want to learn?

                          If you looked at Linux like the day you go your learners permit, it's just learning what the tools are and how to use them. Is there something specific you are wanting to do with Linux?

                          looking at Linux Administration.

                          Oh, in the case, installing RHEL 8 is probably the best place to start.

                          Spend money on RHEL, really? When we were just telling him to not spend money on Windows 10 Pro for his work provided computer.

                          In a lab/home environment, sure that makes sense, but this is discussing his career. Which I would lean towards Fedora as a jump point.

                          RHEL is still free (as far as I know) it's just a HUGE PITA to get your hands on if you don't buy support for it.

                          Interesting, but is there really a value to using RHEL without support?

                          Only for testing or claiming that you've used it.

                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • stacksofplatesS
                            stacksofplates @Dashrender
                            last edited by

                            @Dashrender said in Linux OS Thoughts?:

                            @stacksofplates said in Linux OS Thoughts?:

                            @Dashrender said in Linux OS Thoughts?:

                            @DustinB3403 said in Linux OS Thoughts?:

                            @scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:

                            @WrCombs said in Linux OS Thoughts?:

                            @DustinB3403 said in Linux OS Thoughts?:

                            @WrCombs said in Linux OS Thoughts?:

                            Learn linux - But with out the " "

                            Okay so let's break this down one more step. What about Linux do you want to learn?

                            If you looked at Linux like the day you go your learners permit, it's just learning what the tools are and how to use them. Is there something specific you are wanting to do with Linux?

                            looking at Linux Administration.

                            Oh, in the case, installing RHEL 8 is probably the best place to start.

                            Spend money on RHEL, really? When we were just telling him to not spend money on Windows 10 Pro for his work provided computer.

                            In a lab/home environment, sure that makes sense, but this is discussing his career. Which I would lean towards Fedora as a jump point.

                            RHEL is still free (as far as I know) it's just a HUGE PITA to get your hands on if you don't buy support for it.

                            You can get it for free through a dev account, but it's offered through CentOS as the free version unless you build it from source yourself.

                            Other than a name - what is the difference between CentOS and RHEL? it's my understanding that RHEL is a less rev'ed version of CentOS, which is a less rev'ed version of Fedora... in essence, it's LTS.

                            There's some package differences like subscription manager. But it's mostly branding.

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • scottalanmillerS
                              scottalanmiller @stacksofplates
                              last edited by

                              @stacksofplates said in Linux OS Thoughts?:

                              @DustinB3403 said in Linux OS Thoughts?:

                              @scottalanmiller can explain what the fundamental differences is between LTS and anything bleeding edge.

                              To summarize it lazily, LTS is a set in time that is only updated for security concerns. BE is everything not that and you wanting to use the newest features as soon as they are released.

                              Yeah that's not true. Dot releases with CentOS/RHEL give you packages that weren't in previous releases. For example adding VDO in 7.5 or 7.6. By the way, I believe you still need copr on Fedora to install that (so not in upstream yet.).

                              New packages, but if they update old ones, it stops being an LTS and just becomes a different "current". But just adding something new and optional isn't the same as updating something old. MS follows the same rules.

                              stacksofplatesS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • IRJI
                                IRJ @scottalanmiller
                                last edited by

                                @scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:

                                @IRJ said in Linux OS Thoughts?:

                                @scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:

                                @IRJ said in Linux OS Thoughts?:

                                @scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:

                                @IRJ said in Linux OS Thoughts?:

                                Literally all the NIST, CIS, etc standards point to LTS and dont have benchmarks for Bleeding Edge.

                                And this, in turn, makes them complete and utter jokes with no place in a production environment. If they don't know computing basics (and they don't) they shouldn't be making recommendations. We know that these agencies are inept and at best decades behind the times. That they recommend LTS tells us a lot about if that's a good idea. Remember until just two years ago NIST was recommending insecure passwords because they couldn't keep up with decades old basic computer knowledge.

                                A good portion of business that have any compliance requirements dont have a choice. Pretty much businesses that have any kinds of audits are going to need to meet benchmarks even if they arent specific to CIS or NIST. Nobody is able to provide valid benchmarks for Bleeding Edge as they change so much.

                                That's unrelated to what is "good" or "secure". Politics and good business are opponents, not partners.

                                Sometimes you need both. Without requirements we would be in much worse shape. There has to be an audit process in place, and they has to be realistic time for it. Most of audit checks make perfect sense. Sure there is always weird requirements, but overall they surely are considered best practice.

                                Sometimes you have to bow to politics over what is good for the business all things being equal. The law often demands or promotes reckless behaviour (like allowing faxes under HIPAA... absolutely criminal if the law didn't promote it.)

                                But that doesn't make the practice good, only required.

                                If HIPAA was anything like NIST , Holy shit would we be in good shape in comparison. If you have dealt with the two, you will realize there is no comparing the two.

                                HITRUST is well trusted in the medical field. They are difficult to acheive and take years of work in some cases to acheive HiTRUST.

                                HIPAA is literally bullshit that is well below common sense knowledge.

                                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • DashrenderD
                                  Dashrender @scottalanmiller
                                  last edited by

                                  @scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:

                                  @WrCombs said in Linux OS Thoughts?:

                                  @IRJ said in Linux OS Thoughts?:

                                  Stick to LTS versions (...hides)

                                  what is LTS Versions vs. Bleeding Edge

                                  That's not a comparison. They are saying Bleeding Edge in an attempt to discredit "Current Releases." Bleeding edge is something wholly different.

                                  LTS: Long Term Support. These are OS releases that are selected (every major vendor does this... Windows, RHEL, Ubuntu, Suse, etc.) to get "support" for a really long time with a guarantee that the code versions won't change. It's a locked release that you can install and use and get "support" for a long time. I say "support" because it's not always what it sounds like. Ubuntu doesn't offer anything we'd call actual support for their LTS, it's all a marketing thing not a tech thing.

                                  Current Release: This is the current product release from a vendor. Windows, RH, Ubuntu, Suse all offer these. Windows, RH, and Ubuntu all have a ~6 month release cycle for current. Suse alone uses a rolling release model. None of these imply anything like cutting or bleeding edge, those terms would denote a misunderstanding of what releases are. A current release can easily include software that is decades old, nothing about it implies a faster release of packages. And if it did, Ubuntu LTS is also "Current" every 18 months, so if bleeding edge is bad, then their LTS is also bad because they would overlap.

                                  Current selections of both....

                                  Windows:
                                  LTS: Windows LTSB 1809
                                  Current: 1903

                                  Red Hat:
                                  LTS: CentOS 8 / RHEL 8
                                  Current: Fedora 30

                                  Ubuntu:
                                  LTS: 1804
                                  Current: 1910

                                  Suse:
                                  LTS: OpenSuse Leap
                                  Current: OpenSuse Tumbleweed

                                  Actually 1909 has been released officially.

                                  WrCombsW scottalanmillerS 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 1
                                  • WrCombsW
                                    WrCombs @Dashrender
                                    last edited by

                                    @Dashrender said in Linux OS Thoughts?:

                                    @scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:

                                    @WrCombs said in Linux OS Thoughts?:

                                    @IRJ said in Linux OS Thoughts?:

                                    Stick to LTS versions (...hides)

                                    what is LTS Versions vs. Bleeding Edge

                                    That's not a comparison. They are saying Bleeding Edge in an attempt to discredit "Current Releases." Bleeding edge is something wholly different.

                                    LTS: Long Term Support. These are OS releases that are selected (every major vendor does this... Windows, RHEL, Ubuntu, Suse, etc.) to get "support" for a really long time with a guarantee that the code versions won't change. It's a locked release that you can install and use and get "support" for a long time. I say "support" because it's not always what it sounds like. Ubuntu doesn't offer anything we'd call actual support for their LTS, it's all a marketing thing not a tech thing.

                                    Current Release: This is the current product release from a vendor. Windows, RH, Ubuntu, Suse all offer these. Windows, RH, and Ubuntu all have a ~6 month release cycle for current. Suse alone uses a rolling release model. None of these imply anything like cutting or bleeding edge, those terms would denote a misunderstanding of what releases are. A current release can easily include software that is decades old, nothing about it implies a faster release of packages. And if it did, Ubuntu LTS is also "Current" every 18 months, so if bleeding edge is bad, then their LTS is also bad because they would overlap.

                                    Current selections of both....

                                    Windows:
                                    LTS: Windows LTSB 1809
                                    Current: 1903

                                    Red Hat:
                                    LTS: CentOS 8 / RHEL 8
                                    Current: Fedora 30

                                    Ubuntu:
                                    LTS: 1804
                                    Current: 1910

                                    Suse:
                                    LTS: OpenSuse Leap
                                    Current: OpenSuse Tumbleweed

                                    Actually 1909 has been released officially.

                                    That's what I got on my new laptop.. weird.

                                    DashrenderD 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                    • WrCombsW
                                      WrCombs @scottalanmiller
                                      last edited by

                                      @scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:

                                      @WrCombs said in Linux OS Thoughts?:

                                      @IRJ said in Linux OS Thoughts?:

                                      Stick to LTS versions (...hides)

                                      what is LTS Versions vs. Bleeding Edge

                                      That's not a comparison. They are saying Bleeding Edge in an attempt to discredit "Current Releases." Bleeding edge is something wholly different.

                                      LTS: Long Term Support. These are OS releases that are selected (every major vendor does this... Windows, RHEL, Ubuntu, Suse, etc.) to get "support" for a really long time with a guarantee that the code versions won't change. It's a locked release that you can install and use and get "support" for a long time. I say "support" because it's not always what it sounds like. Ubuntu doesn't offer anything we'd call actual support for their LTS, it's all a marketing thing not a tech thing.

                                      Current Release: This is the current product release from a vendor. Windows, RH, Ubuntu, Suse all offer these. Windows, RH, and Ubuntu all have a ~6 month release cycle for current. Suse alone uses a rolling release model. None of these imply anything like cutting or bleeding edge, those terms would denote a misunderstanding of what releases are. A current release can easily include software that is decades old, nothing about it implies a faster release of packages. And if it did, Ubuntu LTS is also "Current" every 18 months, so if bleeding edge is bad, then their LTS is also bad because they would overlap.

                                      Current selections of both....

                                      Windows:
                                      LTS: Windows LTSB 1809
                                      Current: 1903

                                      Red Hat:
                                      LTS: CentOS 8 / RHEL 8
                                      Current: Fedora 30

                                      Ubuntu:
                                      LTS: 1804
                                      Current: 1910

                                      Suse:
                                      LTS: OpenSuse Leap
                                      Current: OpenSuse Tumbleweed

                                      That makes a lot more sense.

                                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                                      • stacksofplatesS
                                        stacksofplates @scottalanmiller
                                        last edited by

                                        @scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:

                                        @stacksofplates said in Linux OS Thoughts?:

                                        @DustinB3403 said in Linux OS Thoughts?:

                                        @scottalanmiller can explain what the fundamental differences is between LTS and anything bleeding edge.

                                        To summarize it lazily, LTS is a set in time that is only updated for security concerns. BE is everything not that and you wanting to use the newest features as soon as they are released.

                                        Yeah that's not true. Dot releases with CentOS/RHEL give you packages that weren't in previous releases. For example adding VDO in 7.5 or 7.6. By the way, I believe you still need copr on Fedora to install that (so not in upstream yet.).

                                        New packages, but if they update old ones, it stops being an LTS and just becomes a different "current". But just adding something new and optional isn't the same as updating something old. MS follows the same rules.

                                        Yeah that's not true. They definitely update packages. RHEL/CentOS 7.1 had NetworkManager-1.0.0-16. RHEL/CentOS 7.6 has 1.18.0-5. Just one example.

                                        They definitely update packages as dot releases come out.

                                        scottalanmillerS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                        • scottalanmillerS
                                          scottalanmiller @IRJ
                                          last edited by

                                          @IRJ said in Linux OS Thoughts?:

                                          Negatives about bleeding edge:
                                          Often not supported
                                          No available benchmarks
                                          Higher chance for bugs as it gets untested releases
                                          What are the tangible negatives for LTS?

                                          Issue LTS Current
                                          Latest Technology (including security) Stagnant Updates Much Sooner
                                          Bugs More Time to View Code More Updated Code and Refactoring
                                          Support - Official Better from HR and Suse Better from Microsoft and Canonical
                                          Support - Devs Hated Focused
                                          Support - Products Better for Badly Supported Products Better for Well Supported Products
                                          In the Interest of the Vendor Low High
                                          Security Reviews More Time to Benchmark Less Time to Benchmark
                                          Security - Hackers More time to find holes Less time to find holes
                                          Features Fewer More
                                          Patching Consistent Consistent
                                          Performance Generally Worse Generally Better
                                          Abrubtness of Changes High Low
                                          OS Level Version Updates Generally Breaking Generally Painless
                                          Encourages Proper Maintenance Discourages Encourages
                                          Third Party Library Support Often Requires Leaving LTS Status to Work Less Likely Requires Leaving Supported Conf
                                          More Support for Components (DB) Higher Lower

                                          Lots of the things about one versus the other is "tends to". LTS tends to encourage bad behaviour. Current tends to see bugs first. Of hard and fast things it's less clear, which is why traditionally LTS was considered better in the 90s and 2000s, but isn't seen that way today. How software is delivered, maintained, used and supported is very different. DevOps, for example, has removed many of the arguments for LTS.

                                          I bolded the winners in a category when there was one.

                                          IRJI stacksofplatesS 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                          • scottalanmillerS
                                            scottalanmiller @stacksofplates
                                            last edited by

                                            @stacksofplates said in Linux OS Thoughts?:

                                            @scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:

                                            @stacksofplates said in Linux OS Thoughts?:

                                            @DustinB3403 said in Linux OS Thoughts?:

                                            @scottalanmiller can explain what the fundamental differences is between LTS and anything bleeding edge.

                                            To summarize it lazily, LTS is a set in time that is only updated for security concerns. BE is everything not that and you wanting to use the newest features as soon as they are released.

                                            Yeah that's not true. Dot releases with CentOS/RHEL give you packages that weren't in previous releases. For example adding VDO in 7.5 or 7.6. By the way, I believe you still need copr on Fedora to install that (so not in upstream yet.).

                                            New packages, but if they update old ones, it stops being an LTS and just becomes a different "current". But just adding something new and optional isn't the same as updating something old. MS follows the same rules.

                                            Yeah that's not true. They definitely update packages. RHEL/CentOS 7.1 had NetworkManager-1.0.0-16. RHEL/CentOS 7.6 has 1.18.0-5. Just one example.

                                            They definitely update packages as dot releases come out.

                                            Right, which technically, makes it not an LTS but just a stagnant current 😉 Basically, LTS is such a bad idea, everyone has abandoned it but people demand it, so they keep the terms around to make government agencies and such accept it.

                                            stacksofplatesS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                            • 1
                                            • 2
                                            • 3
                                            • 4
                                            • 5
                                            • 6
                                            • 7
                                            • 2 / 7
                                            • First post
                                              Last post