Arch & "Rolling Releases"

stonecrest · 2005-03-02 00:24:18

I had never heard of the concept of "rolling releases" that Arch uses until I started using it. (In case anyone doesn't know, you never have to do an OS upgrade with Arch because new versions of the OS are merely snapshots of the current packages.) However, this completely baffles my mind. I've searched all over for information about this but have come across very little, so hopefully some people can entertain my questions a bit.

Basically, how does Arch get away with this? Why does every other OS in the world seem to not use this concept such that you have to update their OS every so often? It seems like others (provided they're not selling their OS, of course ) would want to do this as well. Do any other linux distros follow this model? Why can't Red Hat Fedora, for example, do this as well? Or maybe, more accurately, why would they choose not to?

I'm not a linux guru but I just don't understand why this isn't more common with linux distros. Now that I've been fortunte enough to have been introduced to this concept with Arch, it pains me to think about using a distro that forces me to download their newest CDs and update every 6 months or so. (Don't worry, I have no intention of leaving )

cactus · 2005-03-02 00:44:12

It is a nice system that is composed by aggregating components. The components themselves need to be as modular as possible, and able to be moved in and out arbitrarily. This works well on a *nix based os.

Problems inherent in the system can occur when large changes are required to some founding element of the system. For instance, if the arch devs decided to change the hashing algorithm on packages for instance..*cough*..it would take quite a bit of overhead to make such a modification. With a classical release based system, the overhead would be there, but it would be mitigated through the ability to "freeze" creation of new packages in order to make a single "one shot" change-over. My example might not best illustrate what I am trying to say, but hopefully it is clear enough that you get some of my murky meaning.

For projects that are not so componentized, or that have rapidly changing interfaces (like the linux kernel, or openoffice, for instance), a rolling release would be harder to do. Things are not broken up into discreet elements, so updating one thing without effecting another is hard. Similarly, the inability to effectively freeze one feature in relation to another until code stability can again be achieved might be serious detriment to project advancement..

those are just ideas off the top of my head. When it works, it works. When it doesn't, it doesn't.
I don't know why other distros don't use more of a rolling release. It seems well suited to linux. Now that I think of it, debian does in its own way. They just tag a release, and effectively have serveral simultaneous rolling releases and just migrate data between them (waterfalling downwards towards stability).

*end babbling*

dadexter · 2005-03-02 00:44:21

actually it is quite common...

A release of Debian is basically a snapshot of testing once it's stable enough in their opinion, and is tagged stable...

Gentoo is like that as well. Every so often they release a version (2005.1 should be coming out this month I guess) mirroring the current status of the packages (err... portage sorry)...

Slackware works the same way... once -current is stable enough for Mr Patrick, he tags it with a new version and it's released...

so if a distro offers anything like testing in arch or Debian, or -current like slackware, chances are they use "floating releases"

Cam · 2005-03-02 00:45:15

Well, you could do it with other distrobutions since the OS is basically made up of a kernel and a bunch of userland "packages". If you wanted to update everything with Fedora manually (not sure how good their package management is) then you could do it, Arch just makes it incredibly easy

rasat · 2005-03-02 03:25:33

Mandrake, SuSE and RedHat distros are enterprises doing business. Linux OS is free but sold as a packet with CDs and manual. Moreover rpm dependency breaks with latest software upgrades.

sarah31 · 2005-03-02 04:01:40

rasat wrote:

Linux OS

Eh? I always thought Linux was a kernel and not an OS in the conventional sense.

stonecrest · 2005-03-02 05:33:55

Thanks for the replies. I didn't realize that so many other distros use this same sort of model (only Arch seems to really emphasize it?).

rasat · 2005-03-02 05:47:58

stonecrest wrote:

(only Arch seems to really emphasize it?).

Arch is user oriented providing a base with simple tools for users to make their own system, and contribute programs, packages and documents.

Dusty · 2005-03-02 16:21:04

sarah31 wrote:

Eh? I always thought Linux was a kernel and not an OS in the conventional sense.

I believe that traditionally, an OS is the kernel. All the trappings that come after it are not part of the actual operating system.

Dusty

iphitus · 2005-03-02 22:55:36

unless you run windows where everything including the web browser is integrated into the kernel

alexmat · 2005-03-03 02:24:24

Dusty wrote:

I believe that traditionally, an OS is the kernel. All the trappings that come after it are not part of the actual operating system.

Sorry... can't suppress zealotry.. :twisted:

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_system):

It is also noteworthy that some people use "kernel" to mean the core piece of the OS that deals most directly with the hardware, and have a slightly broader definition of "Operating System". They would define "Operating System" to refer to the kernel plus some of the basic computer programs and libraries that are necessary to use the kernel. An interesting essay about the difference between the kernel and the operating system, from the perspective of a broader definition of OS, can be found here: Linux and GNU (http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/linux-gnu-freedom.html). It should be stressed that neither definition is completely accepted among the Computer Science community.

Just a perspective not a fact

Xentac · 2005-03-05 19:57:31

Just as a note, it's "rolling" release, not "floating" release. Releases don't just bob around in the wind, they roll into each other.

Rolling releases make it much easier to have package issues. For example, we have the apache root in /home/httpd. If we moved it to /var/www or /srv/www, it'll break almost every web server running on arch. If we made actual releases, we could make that a change in a newer release and the admins would be much more aware of the change, because they'd have to migrate their data to the new dirs, instead of them just appearing one day.

mercy · 2005-03-07 11:19:54

Kernel vs. Operating System

http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html

describes this nicely

a Kernel is a "program" providing a Interface to the actual hardware .. not less not more (i think everybody is able to imagine how complex this task is ;-) )

a OperatingSystem is no "program" .. it is a collection of "tools/programs" to use/administrate/operate - simply - use your Hardware ... letz say: a interface to the kernel
and itself provides the Interface for the Applications

Historical facts:

"some pplz" got together and startet writing a Operating System.. GNU ("guh-noo").. (GNU is not UNIX) ...
but they missed to finish the kernel for GNU in time .. called HURD... so the took the finished kernel linux from Linus Torvalds ... modified it (according to the basics it was completely compatible to the archetecture of GNU) ... and there you got it ... GNU/Linux

and those lazy pplz soon sad instead "guh-noo linux" simply linux

*shame on me* wrote Torvalds wrong... :-)

Arch Linux

#1 2005-03-02 00:24:18

Arch & "Rolling Releases"

#2 2005-03-02 00:44:12

Re: Arch & "Rolling Releases"

#3 2005-03-02 00:44:21

Re: Arch & "Rolling Releases"

#4 2005-03-02 00:45:15

Re: Arch & "Rolling Releases"

#5 2005-03-02 03:25:33

Re: Arch & "Rolling Releases"

#6 2005-03-02 04:01:40

Re: Arch & "Rolling Releases"

#7 2005-03-02 05:33:55

Re: Arch & "Rolling Releases"

#8 2005-03-02 05:47:58

Re: Arch & "Rolling Releases"

#9 2005-03-02 16:21:04

Re: Arch & "Rolling Releases"

#10 2005-03-02 22:55:36

Re: Arch & "Rolling Releases"

#11 2005-03-03 02:24:24

Re: Arch & "Rolling Releases"

#12 2005-03-05 19:57:31

Re: Arch & "Rolling Releases"

#13 2005-03-07 11:19:54

Re: Arch & "Rolling Releases"

Board footer