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)