Because they decided to go with Fedora.
Comment on Unraid 8 Moves to Fedora
somegeek@programming.dev 3 days ago
Why not debian?
lka1988@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 days ago
Damage@feddit.it 3 days ago
Why yes debian?
Vittelius@feddit.org 3 days ago
The reason is simple: we want to get you security updates faster, and give you more control over your own machine.
Security work has sped up across the entire Linux world; vulnerabilities are found faster than ever, in packages and in the kernel itself. A Fedora base lets patches reach you more quickly, and on your own terms.
somegeek@programming.dev 3 days ago
Sorry if my question is dumb, but do security patches arrive in debian slower than fedora? Is there any stats on this?
terabyterex@lemmy.world 3 days ago
yes, fedora gets kernel updates very close to their release. debian waits a bit.
so arch is bleeding edge (rolling release) which is so new, it can cause instability.
fedora waits a minute to make sure the release doesnt blow anything up
debian waits fir it tk be out in the field before it updates.
fedora has always been my goldilocks os
klankin@piefed.ca 3 days ago
Not security patches no, debain is quite up to date on these. (would be a kinda awful choice to run the internet otherwise, unpatched security updates are essentially free login credentials to the whole WAN)
New features they tend to be behind on though, in case they introduce any new vulnerabilities.
esc@piefed.social@piefed.social 3 days ago
Often arch gets newer stuff at the same time or later than fedora.
MalReynolds@slrpnk.net 3 days ago I like the analogy of Arch is bleeding edge, fedora cutting edge. Did the Arch thing (and recommend it to learn, still use archwiki) now happy with ublue after a year or two of fedora. Guess I like stuff that just works.
corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 2 days ago
When the enterprise OS company I worked for in 2k1 was considering forking a Linux distro to offer as a freemium product, they evaluated enterprise Linux and Debian.
Debian lost then as its package format had weaker validation and consistency guarantees. It’d’ve been harder to support.
The packaging in both hasn’t changed much, except RH forgot how to use /etc/alternatives properly and now has some ungodly rinkydink thing supplementing it like a colo bag on the side, but the validation difference is still there.
Maybe that was why. Both are riddled with fridge art - oh hi Systemd, network manager, et al - but both are generally similar other than packaging and pipeline.
It has been Slackware based since inseption I think just because that’s what fit when it was created.Fedora particually Silverblue and in turn some of the Ublue projects have shown you can create a super stable environment for container based workloads.
Updates are seemless and targetable a fedora backend gives them an easier switch to podman should docker not be viable in the future.
From the article it looks like they’re focusing on Faster security updates Better hardware support through the Linux kernel There’s a clear seperation of the base os and the apps,plugins etc that Silverblue/Ublue can offer that Debian couldn’t do as easily and they’d be better off just sticking on Slackware.