Long-term support and backport risk [LWN.net]

Long-term support and backport risk

Posted Jun 20, 2007 18:20 UTC (Wed) by ballombe (subscriber, #9523)
Parent article: Long-term support and backport risk

>One of the main selling points touted by many Linux-oriented vendors is stability. Once a customer buys a subscription for an "enterprise" Linux or embedded systems product, the vendor will fix bugs in the software but otherwise keep it stable.

Or they use Debian which provide long-term support, adhere to a strict no-backport policy, and does not require to pay a subscription.

The issue with the 3rd option (move to a current kernel) is that new kernel sometimes require updated user-land tools (udev, etc.) to run properly. This can cause quickly a cascading of update, defeating the whole point of
a stable system.

Also stability actually means much more that the software will not change too much rather than it stays bug-free. People tend to write fragile apps, secure in the knowledge that the environment will not change. If the environment change too much, the apps will fail. This is a common pattern.

(Log in to post comments)

Debian model problem: drivers

Posted Jul 2, 2007 1:01 UTC (Mon) by hazelsct (subscriber, #3659) [Link]

Great idea regarding Debian's kernel model. Just one problem though: try installing a two-year-old kernel in new hardware: it just won't work, the drivers aren't there.

I have been encouraged though by the upkeep of the 2.6.16 kernel. For some reason I have believed that was due to its use in Dapper Drake; had not known before this article that 2.6.16 is also in a major SUSE release.

So here's a fourth option: have a bunch of distros decide together to use a given kernel release, like 2.6.16 here. Then when security patches and new drivers are backported, they can all use the same patches.

The only trouble arises when new drivers require new infrastructure, like the new wireless stuff; the only way to get around that is option 3 with its set of problems. :-(