Ask HN: Does CopyFail make a stronger case for rolling releases such as Arch?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48058361

by fullstacking • 3 months ago

2 3 3 months ago

news.ycombinator.com

title really says it all.

davydm• 3 months ago

Good distros should backport updates like this - the patch has been merged into several downstreams. Whilst I prefer a rolling release, this isn't the reason to do it. You could even be on a rolling release that is behind (like arch - my Gentoo box was patched for this vuln before I even understood what it was, and I could run the exploit on my arch machine days laterz until eventually the update came). Speed of response by the upstream here is more important than anything else.

fullstacking• 3 months ago

I meant from a software architecture / maintenance standpoint. I assume its that much more work to backport vs just pushing the next change, I also assume this type of issue is only going to happen more thus more backporting / hotpatches ect.

wmf• 3 months ago

Many users will never accept rolling releases so it doesn't matter if that's easier for the distro developers.

Ask HN: Does CopyFail make a stronger case for rolling releases such as Arch?

Related Stories