The question of rolling release?

[drago01]

On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 2:30 AM, Rahul Sundaram <metherid at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 01/24/2012 04:53 PM, mike cloaked wrote:
>> Having looked at the way releasing packages and versions in linux has
>> been moving in a number of distributions it is interesting that there
>> are several that now have a rolling-release model.
>>
>> Three of these are:
>>
>> Debian CUT:
>> http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2011/03/debian-cut-a-new-rolling-release/
>> http://cut.debian.net/
>
> This is just a proposal.  Wont happen.
>
>>
>> Opensuse Tumbleweed:
>> http://en.opensuse.org/Portal:Tumbleweed
>
> Seems to be not actively adopted
>
>>
>> Arch Linux:
>> https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_Linux
>
> This is only distro that gained any traction with this model
>
>>
>> Gentoo is also essentially a rolling release distribution.
>>
>> Fedora would appear to be out of line in not taking on board the
>> potential user base for a rolling release version.
>
> I dont think there is a massive user base waiting for a rolling release
> really. Rolling release automatically implies a level of disruption
> periodically everytime a major component is bumped up. Esp for binary
> distros, this isn't that great a user experience. I would participate in
> such a effort but I don't buy the idea of this as a trend

Exactly releases have the advantage of being a well tested set of
updates where you have a window to decide whether you want to update
yet or not.
So I don't see what a rolling release gains really. If you always want
to run the latest and greatest run rawhide (and help make it usable).