Linux

13143 readers

852 users here now

A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system (except the memes!)

Also, check out:

Original icon base courtesy of lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

Ategon@programming.dev

anzo@programming.dev

dwraf_of_ignorance@programming.dev

444

Ubuntu's trust problem in 4 concrete issues - verified facts, no FUD (europe.pub)

submitted 2 weeks ago by Ek-Hou-Van-Braai@piefed.social to c/linux@programming.dev

166 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] woelkchen@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

While Canonical deserves the criticisms leveled by op (that I agree with), it’s also incorrect to say that they lock security updated behind a paywall.

Anyone that does use Ubuntu gets security updated until they stop supporting that particular release version, which iirc is for six years (I may be wrong, thus is from memory).

I quoted the relevant part and yet you still don't understand that Universe is explicitly not covered by security support by Canonical without Ubuntu Pro.

[–] Aatube@thriv.social 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

you can elect to sign up to Ubuntu pro without paying any money

[–] woelkchen@lemmy.world -2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

you can elect to sign up to Ubuntu pro without paying any money

Yes, home users can sign up for Ubuntu Pro for free which means repository access is tracked on an account level. How isn't this more shitty than for example plain Debian?

[–] mech@feddit.org 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Debian also doesn't offer security upgrades for contrib and non-free.
Only main is officially supported.

Same as Ubuntu, security upgrades for additional repos are handled by the community, not the distro maintainers themselves.

[–] woelkchen@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Debian also doesn’t offer security upgrades for contrib and non-free. Only main is officially supported.

So Fedora and openSUSE are most superior. OK.

[–] Aatube@thriv.social 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

i'm not sure what that has to do with the argument

(curious, though: does the Fedora project even have an equivalent to universe? I also thought that OBS didn't have security updates just like the AUR doesn't.)

[–] woelkchen@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

does the Fedora project even have an equivalent to universe?

No because all FOSS software distributed by Fedora is in the main repo.

[–] mech@feddit.org 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

No, it's the same with every distro.
Distro maintainers CAN'T support repos containing non-free packages with security fixes.
Because they can't fix security issues in the code.
Because the code is not free for them to edit.

This entire criticism just shows a lack of understanding of how distros work, and what security updates are.

[–] Aatube@thriv.social 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Ubuntu Universe does not have licensing issues. Ubuntu's nonfree repository is Multiverse. Universe is just the community- as opposed to project-maintained one

[–] mech@feddit.org 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Same thing applies.
The AUR doesn't get security updates from Arch,
RPM Fusion doesn't get security updates from Fedora,
Packman doesn't get security updates from OpenSUSE,
and Slackbuilds/Alienbob don't get security updates from Slackware.

[–] Aatube@thriv.social 3 points 2 weeks ago

woelk did make a good point that based on submission processes, Fedora Main is basically their equivalent of Ubuntu Universe, though.

[–] harsh3466@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 weeks ago

Ah. Both misunderstood what you were saying and was uninformed. My apologies. Editing my original comment to reflect that.