Rolling Release vs. Fixed Release

[Shibblet]

Ubuntu is classified as a "Fixed" release Distro... but is it really?

Think about it... Software updates come out on a regular schedule. Even Kernel updates come out when they are available.
There are "milestone" (SuSE phrasing) releases for the LTS versions as well. 22.04.1, 22.04.2, 22.04.3, etc.

I run Manjaro as well, and the software releases come out when available. Same with Kernel updates.
There are full "updates" in the ISO as well. 21.3.0, 22.1.3, 23.0.3, etc. The releases aren't just every April and October.

So, I ask, what's REALLY the big difference in running a rolling release, or having a fixed Distro?

[1fallen]

So, I ask, what's REALLY the big difference in running a rolling release, or having a fixed Distro?

Stability for the most important parts. Rolling Distro's, and you mention Arch or Arched/based are of a higher tested than say Point releases.
Fixed also includes A big hassle upgrading from version to version 20.04 to 22.04 to 24.04 with PPA's and Hardware differences. rolling is almost seamless.
I'm actually running a Mock rolling Ubuntu now, and it keeps me very busy fixing and mending (stitching it back together).
Now I can't speak on Manjaro, but my Arch systems just keep banging away. Very Happy with that out come.
BTW My Arch install is over 7 years old now. Little fuss and less muss.
Let the foul worded reply's begin. IJDK

[Shibblet]

Stability for the most important parts. Rolling Distro's, and you mention Arch or Arched/based are of a higher tested than say Point releases.
Fixed also includes A big hassle upgrading from version to version 20.04 to 22.04 to 24.04 with PPA's and Hardware differences. rolling is almost seamless.
I'm actually running a Mock rolling Ubuntu now, and it keeps me very busy fixing and mending (stitching it back together).
Now I can't speak on Manjaro, but my Arch systems just keep banging away. Very Happy with that out come.

I didn't know Arch's repos were "higher tested" than other releases. This makes it understandable as to why it's so stable.

So, it's fair to say you prefer a rolling release?

BTW My Arch install...

Translation: "BTW, I use Arch."

[1fallen]

Translation: "BTW, I use Arch."

Is that your "Translation" see my signature.
And it is no secrete that I prefer Rolling Arch, and some Arch Based, just not Manjaro, they don't follow Arch.
Don't get me wrong here, I think Phil is a gifted Programmer. (Lead Developer on Manjaro) it's just not for me.
I use or test a handful of OS's, but my production machines are most certainly Arch.

[deadflowr]

So, I ask, what's REALLY the big difference in running a rolling release, or having a fixed Distro?

Support ends eventually on a fixed release.

[guiverc]

Ubuntu is classified as a "Fixed" release Distro... but is it really?

There are "milestone" (SuSE phrasing) releases for the LTS versions as well. 22.04.1, 22.04.2, 22.04.3, etc.

I'll just give my thoughts on parts.

Ubuntu I see as using a stable release model, rather than fixed; but that's probably only wording.

Ubuntu 22.04 is always 22.04; regardless of 22.04.1/22.04.3; with the last detail showing only the re-release of an updated ISO.

eg. quoting from a 22.04.3 release statement there is

As usual, this point release includes many updates and updated installation media has been provided so that fewer updates will need to be downloaded after installation. These include security updates and corrections for other high-severity bugs, with a focus on maintaining stability and compatibility with Ubuntu 22.04 LTS.

If you're using the hardware enablement stack, that upgrade does mean a change of kernel (22.04.2 used the kernel from 22.10, 22.04.3 replaced it with the kernel from 23.04) but that's just an alternate kernel stack option provided by Ubuntu LTS releases (default for Ubuntu Desktop since 20.04) that has been offered for more than a decade now.

The .1, .2 etc. is not really part of the Ubuntu cycle; only relating to media being respun.

Ubuntu 23.10.1 Desktop media already exists; because translation flaws were found on the 23.10 media; thus causing the creation of 23.10.1 media for Ubuntu Desktop (ubuntu-desktop-installer ISO only), and Ubuntu Budgie (ubuntu-desktop-installer only), but I don't see that as related to any milestone. Ubuntu 17.10.1 also needed to exist too.

I'm on the development release of Ubuntu, currently noble which will be deemed as stable when it reaches Release Candidate stage and thus renamed to Ubuntu 24.04 LTS. My release is as pretty much close to what I can get to rolling on Ubuntu (like my Debian testing/sid box is), but its still not a rolling system (in my eyes anyway; both Debian & Ubuntu are stable release based).

An OpenSuSE tumbleweed box besides me is rolling, in my case the GUI is broken, and I've currently little desire to spend energy on it. Rolling systems in my experience are more work, even more than my sitting on a development release (testing for Debian) of a stable release model distribution.

Due to the constant change of upstream, the closer you are to cutting edge the more problems you'll encounter, where as on stable release systems most of those issues are only encountered when you release-upgrade (though can also be experienced with HWE kernel stack changes too, but that is optional on Ubuntu and one reason why my LTS boxes have both GA + HWE installed).

Both rolling and stable release systems involve changes, but those using rolling incur changes constantly, where as stable release users choose to have them on a table they can predict (ie. release-upgrade and/or kernel stack change for HWE users; both of which are predictable in month maybe plus/minus a week for a Ubuntu release, and two-three weeks for HWE stack change). My choice of using Ubuntu development (or Debian testing/sid) puts me between rolling and stable, but its still closer to stable in my view than rolling.

[ajgreeny]

A couple of years ago I ran an instalation of the Arch derivative Arcolinux.
It ran well for quite a few months, maybe a year, but then out of the blue everything went wrong and I could not get it to run any further updates.
I searched for a long time but it all got to be just too much trouble compared to my main box running Xubuntu 20.04 at that time which never let me down.
So for me the stability of the Ubuntu "fixed release" system is more dependable an thatvis where i shall stay.

[Rubi1200]

@ajgreeny

I, too, tried ArcoLinux briefly until running into too many issues, both with installs and upgrades. I had the feeling the developer was spreading himself too thin with all the various versions.

I highly recommend you give EndeavourOS a spin. Good community and solid system with very few issues (at least for me).

[ajgreeny]

Yes, I tried Endeavour after Arcolinux and it was good but I'm happy to report that Xubuntu remains my tried and tested solid system that has never caused problems for me.
I totally remove the complete snap infrastructure so don't have any of the difficulties some users see with them!

[grahammechanical]

How would this question be answered by those administering computers for a commercial organisation?

I imagine the preference would be for a User Interface that stays the same for a number of years. It would delay the re-training of employees. Which is why Ubuntu Long Term Support releases (5 years) are better for commercial organisations than the standard (9 month) releases. With a Ubuntu Pro subscription the User Interface would be fixed for 10 years.

I imagine with a rolling release changes to the Gnome desktop would come through with any update and without warning. There is a difference between the UI of Ubuntu 20.04/22.04 and Ubuntu 23.10.

Balance that advantage against the disadvantage of upgrading the Ubuntu version to the latest LTS on every computer the organisation uses.

Does anyone have experience of the risks and benefits of using rolling release in the commercial setting?

Regards