What is the difference between Roon OS 1 as compared to OS 2.1?
I run Roon ROCK on an Intel NUC 7i7bnh. It’s currently running 1.0 version 259.
Should I try to update to OS 2.1? Is there any benefit or drawback?
I am a lifetime subscriber
Thank you.
1 Like
The only difference currently is that 2.1 supports ARC connection via the built-in Tailscale option.
This requires that ROCK installation is performed in the NUC‘s UEFI boot mode (not legacy BIOS). Not sure if that’s supported by a NUC7.
Also see this existing and ongoing thread about the same question:
@Suedkiez
NUC7 supports UEFI. Been there, done that.
@Peter_Zwiefelhofer
Roon, at this moment, continues development only with OS 2.1. So if they want to implement a new kernel, it is only on OS2.1, according to me.
But OS 1 continues to work. So if for you the latest kernel is not a hot topic, and you do not want to use ARC over Tailscale, you can leave it on OS 1.
But if you want to play with ROCK, and are not afraid of re-installing ROCK on your NUC7, it is always nice to “upgrade” to OS 2.1. Please be sure that you have a good backup-up before you start to re-install your NUC7!
Kind regards, Frank.
I don’t think you are considering all of the factors when comparing different OS’s and Roon could be more forthright in pointing out the differences. Roon keeps talking about the features that are visible to the user but they do not mention the differences under the hood, Linux for example. It appears that more modern versions of the Linux core are used with OS 2 - which like any modern OS upgrade includes solutions for network bottlenecks and threats. They are important and if overlooked or ignored lead to problems in the future. Its just good practice to keep OS’s up to date.
Correct, I’m only considering the user visible side as that’s the one that drives the decision
Appears how? I don’t think they published info.
And new bugs. This from your older post is a very flawed assumption:
Solutions for network bottlenecks are only interesting if one experienced such an issue that is not fixable in any other way. All the issues people do experience on the Roon forum are not that.
Security patches can be and typically are backported to older kernels without changing the Linux version number. All stable (non bleeding edge) Linux distributions do precisely that.
If you run, say, Debian Stable, you don’t have the latest upstream kernel version, but that doesn’t mean you don’t have the latest kernel patches, because the Debian team backports them to their stable distro kernel. Users of the Stable branch don’t want big unnecessary changes.
I rely on Roon Labs being diligent here, and have to, just like I have to with all other Roon code. There aren’t many kernel bugs these days that are likely to present attack surface in the small and well defined Roon OS scenario.
Up to date with regards to the distributor advice, yes.
When Roon Labs say that everyone should update to Roon OS 2.x because 1.0 has a security issue that won’t/can’t be fixed, then certainly everyone should follow that advice.
As long as they say that 1.0 is supported and fine, there is no need to update unless one wants Tailscale (or some future new feature)
1 Like
I did myself update my NUC7 R.O.C.K to OS2.0 (now2.5)for Tailscale facility only due to a house move where the only Internet option was T-Mobile.
From these release notes, it is stated
" There is no practical (or audible) reason to change from legacy boot to UEFI so there is no need to worry about which mechanism your existing device is using. "
and the comments
“version 2.0 should have been the UEFI build, but it wasn’t. We’re correcting that now with this update. If you want to think of a 2.0 version, consider builds 1.0.254 to 1.0.261 as 2.0 (builds 254-261).”
So the version “Version 1.0 (build 259) production” running on NUC7 build using a Legacy BIOS boot is at RoonOS 2.0
So unless you want or need Tailscale or building a newer NUC, you are fine at this release. Not as if there are frequent release of RoonOS!
1 Like