What exactly is the point of rolling release? My pc (well, the cpu) is 15 years old, I dont need bleeding edge updates. Or is it for security ?
What exactly is the point of rolling release? My pc (well, the cpu) is 15 years old, I dont need bleeding edge updates. Or is it for security ?
This is admittedly anecdotal, but my experience with point releases is that things still break, and when they do, you’re often stuck with the broken thing until a new release comes out. For this reason, among others, dist-upgrades tend to be extremely nervewracking.
With a rolling release, not only are fixes for broken things likely to release faster - if something does break, you can pin that package, and only that package, to an older version in the meantime. Then again, I’ve been using Arch almost exclusively on my desktop for about 7 years and I’ve never had to do this. I don’t doubt that things have broken for people, but as far as I’m concerned, Arch just works.
As far as security goes, I don’t think there’s much, if any, advantage. Debian, the stablest of them all, still gets security updates in a timely fashion.
Rolling vs. point release is not about whether a breaking change happens or not but when.
With rolling, breaking changes could happen at any time (even when inconvenient) but are smaller and spread out.
With point release, you get a big chunk of breaking changes all at once but at predictable points in time, usually with migration windows.
Dist upgrade is only dangerous for the people who do it. Wait a few weeks before upgrading to the new release and most broken things will be fixed already. I used arch a lot, and I do like the idea of rolling releases, but at this point for the couple programs I need new features in, I just build them from source.