On 05/10/2016 06:44 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: > > "Other systems" you mention I bet are Debian and its clones (Ubuntu being > one of them). These systems have different update philosophy than that of > RedHat Enterprise Linux (and hence what CentOS is, which is derived from > RHEL). Namely, these "other systems" do constant micro-upgrades of > components installed on the system to latest release, whenever new release > of given piece of software happens. To the contrary, RHEL mostly backports > important security fixes to a version that was included in original system > release (but occasionally does make upgrades). Hence the differences: > > 1. Debian (and clones): you keep the components of the system pretty much > on the level of latest release of each of components. Therefore "upgrade" > to new release of the system is pretty close to just a regular routine > update. This apparent advantage comes with a disadvantage, namely: every > update has a potential to break something on your machine, as new release > may have different internals, then you will need to work on migration to > them, and this can come as a surprise with any of routine updates. > This is so flat out wrong that I don't know where to begin, and this is not the place to give a lecture about Debian stable or Ubuntu LTS release process anyway. Not knowing something is perfectly normal and it is nothing to be ashamed of, spreading misinformation about a topic you have no knowledge of and doing it in a public list *and* when nobody asked you about it, on the other hand...