Traditionally, new software has put forth major releases every couple of years or so, with minor releases in between for security and bug fixes. Known as point releases, this strategy continues to be the primary choice for many leading distributions such as Debian, openSUSE, and Ubuntu. However, over the years, a new strategy has emerged, with individual packages being released as soon as they are ready, rather than waiting for the next major release. Called rolling releases, this strategy is used by Arch Linux, Gentoo, and Manjaro. In any particular instance, the effectiveness of either strategy depends very much on having enough developers and upon the developers’ conscientiousness. However, both have pros and cons, which is why hybrid approaches with characteristics of both strategies are increasingly common.

Point Releases

Point releases have the advantage of tradition. They are well-established, and expertise in them is widespread. Typically, they are administered centrally, making them easy to coordinate, which is no small advantage to many projects, especially distributions, that have hundreds of maintainers and thousands of packages. Even with Snap, Flatpak, or AppImage, most packages have dependencies on other packages – sometimes dozens. As a result, maintainers usually cannot work alone, but must consult with maintainers of other packages to ensure that their work is compatible. In fact, the complexity of a major release is so great that either a development freeze is needed in order to finalize it, or else a major release is mostly a combination of all the point releases since the last one. Otherwise, a major release would be a moving target.

To further aid in the release effort, point release projects often have rigorous, comprehensive standards. For instance, the Debian guidelines are often said to be what makes Debian what it is. They are also the main reason that Debian is the foundation of choice for security-focused distributions like Kali Linux. Even Debian’s Unstable and Testing repositories are considered reliable enough for distributions like Ubuntu to draw upon them.

However, this reputation comes at a price. New features are usually added in major releases, and years can pass between these releases. A decade ago, Debian was infamous for the time between major releases, with the version numbers of many of its packages lagging far behind other distributions. For large scale installations, this lag was acceptable, but not so much for hobbyists and home users. Moreover, even today, installing a major point release may be best undertaken after updating a system with the latest minor releases and disabling third-party software in order to prevent conflicts. The entire process can take an hour or two, causing users to delay the process and thus undermine the security advantage of having the most recently patched packages.

Rolling Releases

Given the weaknesses of point releases for certain audiences, the rise of an alternative is hardly surprising. With rolling releases, the lengthy process of installing a major update is eliminated. Instead, the upgrade comes one package at a time, making it more convenient. Users do not have to wait months or even years for the latest features or search out third-party repositories. Instead, packages are available within days after the upstream projects release them. This reduced waiting time is especially handy in the case of the Linux kernel when it is required to install the latest hardware.

Sometimes, though, the speed of the release means less time for testing. Unless care is taken, bugs and security holes can be missed. As well, the coordination of dependencies can be more difficult. Either of these issues could mean temporary system problems or, at best, more releases to correct problems. Users may also need to scan project forums for information on problems and how to work around them. Some forums, notably Arch Linux’s, are thorough in their helpfulness, but keeping informed may take up more time than some users are willing to spend. In general, rolling releases seem best suited for situations in which security is not a major concern. Some rolling releases may require more attention to system maintenance than point releases.

The Rise of the Hybrids

Neither point nor rolling releases are ideal. Fortunately, though, the distinction between point and rolling releases is less than it used to be. To start with, many standard Linux applications are mature, which means that new releases have less to offer than they did 25 years ago, when they raced to catch up with their proprietary equivalents. Back then, users often awaited new releases in order to obtain a missing feature they needed. By contrast, over half of release notes today cover minor cosmetic improvements. As a result, the appeal of rolling upgrades as providers of the latest and greatest is perhaps more of a habit than anything else. Simply put, there is less excitement in an upgrade than in the past. Increasingly, waiting has become less important.

More importantly, the distinction seems more about the starting point than the result. Both point and rolling distributions are well aware of their potential problems and do their best to compensate for them. For this reason, today’s strategies are more of a hybrid approach. Some distributions opt to support both strategies. For instance, Fedora positions its development branch Rawhide as a rolling release while continuing its Branched point release. Similarly, openSUSE offers both the rolling Tumbleweed and the point Leap releases. In both cases, efforts are made to keep the rolling releases stable.

Another approach is taken by Arch Linux, which releases what it calls an ISO refresh for fresh installs, which is much like a point release. Still another tactic is used by Manjaro, which uses Arch Linux repositories, but does its own testing of packages, delaying their availability for a week or two. By contrast, Debian, once known for the long gap between point releases has stabilized into a major release every two years and point releases every two months. In between point releases, Debian compensates for any delay, not only with the standard minor releases and security updates, but with an array of repositories that can be added for the benefit of developers and users alike: Stable Proposed Updates for upcoming point releases and Debian Backports for more recent versions of selected packages that are compatible with Debian Stable. As well, users can also choose to install from Debian Testing, Debian Unstable, and Debian Experimental, each of which offers a rolling release with a different degree of risk for instability. Increasingly, one way or another, point and rolling releases are meeting each other halfway. Perhaps in the end, the decision of which strategy to use in a modern distribution comes down to habit and personal preference.