I did not want to address this issue, especially since other blogs have already done so, but I could not avoid being able to express my opinion on it.
Briefly explaining the soap opera synopsis: A developer of Canonical (Oliver Grawert) issues a criterion against Linux Mint, claiming that he would not use it for secure "tasks", such as logging into an online bank account, for example.
Then, holding onto that, a member of Mozilla and member of The Ubuntu Community, Benjamin Kerensa, lashes out at updates from Firefox en LMDE, which has nothing to do with Linux Mint, but since they are two products of the same house, they carry the blame equally.
Then comes Clem (who is very busy releasing Mint 16) and offers an answer to the matter, clarifying a couple of things and also informing about others, such as:
I personally spoke with Canonical's legal department (for other reasons, as they are telling us that we need a license to use their binary packages) and they are clearly confused about LMDE and Mint.
In short, what Oliver y Benjamin they want to see, is that Linux Mint is less secure than Ubuntu. Clem's response?
- We explained in 2007 the shortcomings we found in the way Ubuntu recommends its users to blindly apply all available updates. We explained the problems associated with regressions and have implemented a solution that we are very happy with.
- Someone running Mint can start Update Manager »Edit» Preferences and activate level 4 and 5 updates, so Linux Mint can be as "safe" and "unstable" as Ubuntu.
Now, about updates to Firefox Clem tells us:
- Linux Mint uses the same Firefox package from the Ubuntu repository. Firefox is a level 2 update so every Mint user receives it by default.
- LMDE, which is not based on Ubuntu, uses its own Firefox package. We've been slow to update it in the past with LMDE (and that's probably what the Canonical developer is confusing), but we took action and made automations so that, Firefox 25 was released on October 29 and as of October 30, already I was in LMDE.
My opinion
After the story of the soap opera, I will give my opinion.
To begin with I think that, even with reason or no reason, The Ubuntu Community (users and developers) have always had their hives to con Linux Mint, since their popularity obviously bothers them, and they have taken advantage of each slip to make firewood from the fallen tree.
License to use Ubuntu binaries? Seriously? Now the only thing missing is that you have to pay to use the Canonical distribution or worse, pay to make a derivative. And I wonder, with what moral Canonical?
Sure, you have to see which "binaries" they explicitly refer to, I think they refer to packages related to Canonical Partners, but there is a contradiction here: Isn't Ubuntu supposed to be an Open Source distribution?
En Very linux someone told me that Ubuntu has workers collecting a payroll to collaborate or work for Debian, letting me see that in that way Canonical contributed to the Upstream, but so what? Red Hat (for example) pays developers of GNOME and they do not therefore require others to pay for licenses to use their binaries.
With these types of actions, at least in my eyes, Canonical degrades every day.
Viewing the response of Clem and the examples he uses, you can see at first glance that Mint offers us the possibility of being "a little safer" than Ubuntu with the correct configuration, according to our own choice. As Clem says: Security is something you configure.
If you ask me, and if I was in the shoes of Clem lefebvre, well I would send Ubuntu to fry tomatoes and I would focus on LMDEwell in the end CinnamonThe flagship Linux Mint, works on Debian perfectly and MATE, is already in the process of being added.
But nothing, this is just my opinion. What do you guys think?
Your opinion seems to me the most correct of all. Ok, Ubuntu has programmers for its use and that the distros that use its base can use it as you said it is open source. Maybe the ubuntu people should think on what basis they work, I mean. And if you don't want to be criticized for using your own base, why speak we all know but act ??? That is already another topic 😉
And for that reason is that I am not using Ubuntu or derivatives on real PCs.
I started with the fervor of ubuntu 8.04 a bit old and outdated at the time, I returned to the one in full development, 10.04 a beauty I continued with it on the Laptop, at home I focus on Debian, one of the most stable OS I know. Until version 12.04, my lap was ruled by Ubuntu, but something happened and Ubuntu lost its flavor, Linux Mint does not please me, it makes me a toy software, you just have to see its website to realize it. So today my Lap is dominated by Debian 7, a bit of eyecandy and voila !!!!!
Debian is the best option to ubuntu.
And that is why I am using Debian on my PC.
What about Xubuntu 14.04.2 LTS is fast, lightweight and fail-safe. It does not break even by chance. Regards.
Even though Linux Mint has never been my devotion (due to the fact that in its beginnings they took 90% of the work already done from Ubuntu), I do not stop recognizing that all this gossip, tell me-what-I-will-tell you, soap opera or whatever the hell you want to call it, it has its 'hidden' motives.
First you have to have something VERY clear, neither Ubuntu nor Linux Mint, as well as neither Mark nor Clem ... none of these are saints, they are not angels or simple victims, each one has had their problem (or has) in terms of a bad reputation ( let's not forget what happened to Banshee https://blog.desdelinux.net/linux-mint-se-queda-con-las-ganancias-de-banshee-clem-responde/)
Second, Oliver may have said what he has said out of simple ignorance, perhaps he was unaware of the 'security levels' options that Mint offers…. or maybe yes, and you just want to criticize the opposite or competition (Mint), to praise yourself, your product (Ubuntu).
In fact, it's the reason why I don't like using Ubuntu or derivatives on real PCs. There are always these types of discussions that simply spoil the participation of these types of projects.
Ubuntu is a good distro, but nothing more. As for its organization, it leaves a lot to be desired and has not managed to reach the processing speed that the parent distro has (Debian).
Oh by the way, Ubuntu (rather Canonical) for some time now, it seems that it wants to dig its own grave, the declarations of developers or directors of Canonical are getting worse every day ... God !, how can you be so unintelligent in terms advertising, promotion!
I think the Canonical developers were living at Foxconn. They cannot work in a work environment overdosed on deadly stress.
Let's see if I understood correctly:
Oliver Grawert, even knowing that Canonical includes spyware as a business mode in Ubuntu, says that Linux Mint is not secure?
They are mere tantrums, because Firefox itself can give the permissions so that you can put Firefox in the repos of the distro you have created (unless you have the Debian position and decide to fork Firefox avoiding the permissions, of course); and for the security issue of the repos, most of that weight falls on those who maintain the Ubuntu repos.
Ubuntu is a good distro like Linux Mint, but it does not convince me to install it on a real PC as is the case with Arch, Slackware, Russian Fedora Remix or CentOS.
I think similar to you elav, Canonical is leaving much to be desired, and if it is gaining the contempt of its users and many collaborators. But in the end they will opt for the money and we will see them move more and more towards these kinds of decisions and comments.
Red Hat is driven by money, and even so, most do not speak ill of them.
RHEL was private from the beginning. But later an early Ubuntu will tell you:
1.- If you pay I will give you the full version, support, etc….
ó
2.- We give you the free one to try, but it is not like the complete one
haha, ya true
At least RHEL knows what it's doing and doesn't screw it up like Canonical does (at least, the subscription to RHEL repos are much cheaper than a Windows Server 2012 license and with a good couple of tweaks, it can go a long way. a thousand wonders).
So you are giving me the reason in what I said
Yes.
$ 49 worth it.
But Canonical's problem is that they have made their policy of getting income wrong, the Amazon buff thing ... Red Hat moves for money but it is its purpose, I mean, you know what you are going to find. Canonical has come up with a policy of discrediting the rest of the world out of nowhere to get money and get more market in exchange for damaging its image, without taking into account that users are not as conformist as those of Windows for example (how ironic, what I write from w8 xD) and that they were not going to ignore it.
I would do MultiMint in addition to Debian Edition
manjaro edition
RPM Edition
sabayon edition
Even Slackware edition
It would not cost so much and we would have a choice
I'm going more to the contrary, that they continue with the path they took by letting go of the KDE and XFCE versions of LMDE. They should handle only Cinnamon and Mate and in one of the 2: Ubuntu or Debian. Because as they are they cannot give correct support to any version. They are embracing more than they can squeeze.
And choose Debian for the love of God!
At least, I already did it for a long time.
Interesting, but I have some comments:
“Now the only thing left is that you have to pay to use Canonical's distribution or even worse, pay to make a derivative. And I wonder, with what moral Canonical? »
In the middle of 2013, and we still have to point out the difference between "free" and "free" or open source? If Canonical decides to charge for Ubuntu it may be unpleasant, but not immoral.
"Red Hat (for example) pays GNOME developers and does not require others to pay for licenses to use their binaries."
As far as I know, you must pay a license to use RHEL binaries.
"It should be seen that" binaries "explicitly refer to"
You are criticizing people who speak without knowing (and I agree with that), and here you do the same as them.
Hadrian:
1- It is precisely because I know the difference between free and free that I issue my comment. Ubuntu claims to be "Free" or "Open Source", and it is clear that it does not have to be free, but it is not what they sold from the first moment.
2- I'm not talking about Red Hat binaries, I'm talking about GNOME binaries.
3- I am not criticizing anyone in particular. Only Canonical, who got in through a window claiming to be one thing, and settled in the house as another. It's true that I don't know what binaries you mean, but apparently not even Clem Lefebvre knows. What is the mystery? Why doesn't Canonical speak up and explicitly state somewhere its licensed binaries?
Mark already had to come out in defense of that "new member" who demanded from a site that we already talked about because of the logo and the name .. Now what? What is the excuse?
They are the worst, they only think of annoying their users and preventing new users from approaching Ubuntu ... Yes, we must definitely end Ubuntu and all that it represents ... Power Community!
A suggestion .. you are on the path of being called «Religious Taliban», that is, of being those who see Ubuntu as a religion .. Don't do it .. Don't go there 😉
+1
May well be:
«To begin with, I think that, even with reason or without reason, The Community of -insert the name of the preferred distro- (users and developers) has always had its hives for Ubuntu, since it obviously bothers them its popularity, and they have taken advantage of every slip to make firewood from the fallen tree. "
How things have changed from attacking one and defending another xD
From the comment they made about Canonical having their people working with Debian, you should clarify here that it is a response to the comment that Linux Mint does well to suck from Ubuntu repositories because Ubuntu does the same with Debian without returning nothing in return (something like "thief who robs thief ..."). Which is totally false, Canonical collaborates with paid developers for Debian, and puts ITS OWN repositories. Something that any distro, no matter how derived, should do.
And Canonical is not demanding a payment for the use of its binaries, but that they undergo a bureaucratic procedure to have an approving signature to all those distro that want to be based on Ubuntu and use the repositories of that distro.
What Lefebvre mentions is very true, the security configuration is now more the responsibility of each user, but that system that manages for updates is only the graphical variant of "software origins" that is handled in Ubuntu, and levels 4 and 5 that previously came by default in Mint, is the same as activating the "proposes" repository of updates in Ubuntu and that is deactivated by default.
Clement's work group, outside of Cinnamon (which has made great strides, it is undeniable), leaves much to be desired in managing the system. Much depends on how the software and security patches arrive in the Ubuntu repositories, and even so, many times they exclude updates such as the kernel or less popular software, to update their versions of Mint.
This became very big, because initially the opinion was solely and exclusively from a developer on a mailing list, and many took it (and although they clarify it, as in the case of MuyLinux, they continue to take it that way) as Canonical's opinion . The community that is against Canonical is putting itself in a plan that whatever the company or an employee of it does is wrong, even if they are right, and when they are not, then with more force they go to the jugular even if there are others that are as wrong or more than the company run by the crazy South African.
I am not against Cannonical or Ubuntu; but I am against these fights that really hurt the majority of users who simply give more doubts than security when installing Mint / Ubuntu.
I am against Canonical (commercially speaking), their measures are ruining Ubuntu. It is simply to see how version 13.10 turned out, with a lot of software focused on the mobile version, where you have to resort to the HUD if or if to perform an operation that before was only a matter of clicking a button to access it.
But of that, to be in favor of Intel, RedHat (oops, sorry, Gnome) and various companies (oops, i did it again, I meant KDE) to put obstacles to Canonical, nothing is further from reality.
Before our eyes we have a shameless war between the old men of this world of Linux and Canonical, but the slogan is to go against Uncle Mark's company whatever he does. It doesn't matter that RedHat charges for their binaries and runs Gnome, it doesn't matter that Digia, SuSe, Blue Systems and other KDE funders, along with Intel, have abandoned Wayland development for years and in the last year have magically gone to it and boycott (ordering Intel rather) the support of MIR, it does not matter that Icaza and others say that the way of Gnome and KDE is not the right one ... none of that matters, the only thing that is done wrong is what Canonical does. xD
Canonical's measurements are truly to cry. On the commercial side, I agree with you.
On the technical side, I'm not convinced by Ubuntu's repos or development cycle, so I haven't been encouraged to use Ubuntu or Mint on a real PC. The truth is that on a business level, Red Hat is much smarter and more mature than Canonical.
Although Debian and Slackware seem to be out of it, the truth is that they are good at supporting the public to whom it is directed.
I also do not agree with the cycles they handle. It is brutal.
They are currently supporting 4 versions (12.04, 12.10, 13.04, 13.10) and they are already working on LTS 14.04… .it is stupidly exaggerated !!!
Quietly they could be working with LTS and 6 months before the launch of one, get the alpha or beta version, and even if they are with 5 years support, only for 1 year they would have to support 3 versions at the same time, and for the next They would be with 2 versions, with a chance to prepare to start working on the next one. For example, if they were working as I mentioned, and that was since 10.04, currently they would only be supporting 2 versions (10.04 and 12.04) and working on 14.04, and once 14.04 was released, only until April 2015 they would be supporting it to 3 versions at a time. After there they would have relief to start working on the LTS of 16.04.
That Canonical way of working just doesn't fit in my head these days.
Daniel C:
I understand that as an Ubuntu user you stand up in their defense, even if you do not support some of Canonical's decisions. Fine, but don't call them "Los Santos de GNU / Linux" either.
I am not a Linux Mint user, and I have no idea where their repositories are pointing, but as far as I know, no distribution has complained, or protested that their derivatives use their repositories, right?
Why should I have my own repositories when 90% of what I use is already available to everyone? That would be wasting resources in vain. Canonical makes the Ubuntu repositories for everyone to use. Mint creates its own repositories for the things they only add to it.
But when has something similar been seen? Approving signature? Because they will now have their own repositories but I ask you:
- Are you sure they don't use Debian's as Upstream?
- Are you sure Debian requires an approving signature?
- Do you think that paying some employees to work for Debian already gives them every right to skip what they demand?
I honestly don't think so.
I imagine you know that the first one who supported / promoted / evangelized Wayland was Mark Shuttleworth himself .. And it has been demonstrated (technically), in hundreds of articles on the subject, why all those projects that you mention have given him the back to MIR.
In addition, I leave you what I already commented in GUTL about the opinion of the developers towards Canonical and MIR:
«So far that I know, no distribution has complained, or has protested because their derivatives use their repositories, or if? »I am surprised that having been a Debian user for so long you did not know what they do with some of its derivatives. They just send them to fry asparagus and put them in a separate repository so they don't suck on theirs (in LMDE a couple of years ago, when they moved them, a lot of software was disappeared from the repositories. Did Mint worry about replacing them in their new repository? ? nope, not at all).
«- Are you sure they don't use Debian's as Upstream?
- Are you sure Debian requires an approving signature?
- Do you think that paying some employees to work for Debian already gives them every right to skip what they demand? "
I don't understand what that has to do with Canonical wanting to take these measures.
I'm sure that if Debian's repositories were sucked out, they would have already done the same to them as Mint and others derived from the universal distro.
"I imagine you know that the first person to support / promote / evangelize Wayland was Mark Shuttleworth himself."
Yes, I know that perfectly, and I have referred to that several times that when he was there, nobody said anything, but when he said that he was leaving Wayland and was going to create his own version (because neither Gnome nor KDE put the least effort into him then) it is when everyone got on with Wayland.
And just as you quote me about Grosslin, well, very similar to Canonical. It is very fucking to be saying everywhere «hey, this is the future, we must develop it together because it is what we are all going to use» and see that the biggest ones leave you alone FOR YEARS to you and a couple of developers among whom Hogsberg was even more alone at the beginning. It is very fucked up to see that no matter how hard you try to convince and put some of them to develop, you only advance small percentages, and just when you announce your resignation, the others get to work on what you asked for support for years and advance 200 or 300 times more in less than 1 year. If that's not a desire to fuck, then I don't know what you mean by that.
Companies that hinder Canonical?
Obstacles is what they do by asking for written requests to use their binaries, obstacles are to intimidate pages with legal arguments about logos just because they publish things that do not suit them, obstacles are to carry out developments that they presume to be free but that it is not feasible to port them to other distros.
I have not seen any obstacle or attempt to boycott Canonical developments by any company, and when I ask those who mention it for examples, they have not been able to give me or not only.
Between not supporting and putting obstacles, there is a lot of difference.
I'm not going to go around accusing anyone of restricting my diet just because they don't give me money so I can buy food.
Abandon wayland development?
But if the development calendars are published, as well as the mailing lists, the progress is clearly seen according to time, it is false that only in the last year the batteries have been put.
"I have not seen any obstruction or attempt to boycott Canonical developments by any company,"
I really don't know where you've been surfing all this time.
And well, if there are companies that do not take it against Canonical but against anyone who is put in front of it, those are Novell and RedHat. Just find out about the agreements they make with MS (commercial, patent and developer) and Intel, the handling of Gnome and the influence (because it is officially community, but still heeds some "recommendations") on KDE.
RedHat collaborates a LOT in linux and the kernel, and for that reason it has a LOT of influence in this world.
@DanielC
As I said, they have never been able to present me with a single example of a "lock."
I too might wonder if you haven't been using the microwave to navigate all this time, but the truth is that kind of unsubstantiated argument gets us nowhere.
Novell's deals with MS are widely known (and heavily criticized at the time), but it has nothing to do with it.
The same with the RedHat commercial agreements, Canonical has them with amazon, valve and see who else, but what?
I do not deny the influence, but that is another thing also apart, since the influence is not bad per se, and if it is accused that it is used to hinder X project, it would not hurt to put some evidence that supports it .
The truth is that the only thing I like about Ubuntu are the LTS versions (which RH / Fedora doesn't have). But then, to my understanding, they are distorting things.
RHEL releases are equivalent to Debian Stable releases, at the same time, they are equivalent to LTS versions of Ubuntu; Fedora releases are equivalent to Ubuntu Release.
Being opensource does not mean that it does not have any type of restriction, it all depends on the type of license and the type of clause.
That's true.
And by the way, are you using an Ubuntu derivative or is the Firefox user agent playing a prank on you?
No no xD, I'm using ubuntu ahahaha !, maybe the weekend I go to pink linux or neptune.
Hopefully you installed it in netinstall mode.
Ahaha no, I installed it with the unity live cd, more than anything because I already had it downloaded XD and thus it avoided me looking for an hour, while downloading the XD packages! I don't know what happens from Spain, but it always selects me by default, a fairly slow and saturated mirror.
Lately it seems that Ubuntu has changed its attitude towards the rest of the Linux community, with so much user spying, so much stumbling, accusations and blunders. It wouldn't take much for Mint to veer off to Debian entirely and send Ubuntu to fry asparagus, which is what it should have done long ago. And the same answer is applicable for all other "derivatives" of that distribution. If this continues, the future is not a good one, especially if you want to become independent and turn your software into a straightforward Windows-style business. The system is good, but the people who do it are starting to piss off the user ... or not?
I totally agree. If I were the director of LM, I would have been independent long ago.
That cannot be true! Now or in the future, I am going to pay to use a product that I made popular… It cannot be, with what sense ???
You don't need to pay. The problem is due to the simple tantrum that occurred due to the security issue of Ubuntu repos, which depends on both Ubuntu and its derivatives.
I already said it at the time, LMDE should be the flagship and give Ubuntu.
If Iceweasel is in LMDE, I am about to use it. At the moment, I'm still running Debian Wheezy with zero issues.
Nope, they use Firefox.
Okay. At the very least, I hope that version of Firefox isn't Canonical's special edition.
It is clear that Mint has long been a risk variable for the business that Ubuntu has started. Mint's poularity, ease of use, as well as its higher degree of refinement makes it more attractive in the eyes of a novice user; What a shame these things happen when one started in Ubuntu and went through Mint. I think my Linux range is and will be [arch, debian] for a long time.
regards
stamina Linux Mint (and)
Nothing new.
In my opinion, many people, especially readers of desdelinux, you should do like me: ignore Ubuntu/Canonical.
Which distro does Ubuntera recommend me with a similar user experience?
Russian Fedora Remix. By far the best.
Regarding the people who work in canonical and collaborate in debian, I had heard that the vast majority were debian developers who entered canonical because they belong to debian, but they have also taken people who have worked in apple, etc.
Regarding the issue of licenses, I had long read an art by one that analyzed ubuntu licenses and had many gray areas (software developed by Canonical and improvements and contributions introduced by people) if by chance I find the art then I put link
I found it here https://blog.desdelinux.net/un-analisis-de-las-licencias-de-contribucion-a-canonical-y-fedora/ (I think the art was on another blog but it doesn't matter)
I think these struggles only lead to one thing, a dissipation of energies on both sides that could focus on improving software for the benefit of GNU / Linux. Stop the bullshit and tantrums, be it Ubuntu, Linux Mint, or whoever. Once again it is shown that envy and pride seriously hurt freedom ...
The LMDE I have not understood very well. So do you blame them as insecure for not updating to the latest version? Since when is this so? The truth is, I've been installing LMDE for a couple of days, I can't comment much either. But I think that if it were something fat it would update without problems. I don't understand too well what the complaint is about ...
A greeting!
PS: A critical Thunderbird update came out yesterday (https://www.mozilla.org/security/known-vulnerabilities/thunderbird.html#thunderbird24.1.1) and today I already have it available in LMDE.
Aaaaaaaah. My openSuSE that does not get into any puddle. That's why, and because of how well it works, I've been using it for so many years.
Very good response from the person from LM, Ubuntu and Canonical are getting worse every day! : S
Hello, Elav. It has been a long time since I left a comment like the one I propose to make. When did it start Desde Linux, a little more than two years ago, I was dedicated to correcting linguistic and spelling errors in the entries, he he he he.
I have always liked your articles, the way you write and your opinions. It goes without saying that your spelling errors are few, like the ones I found today. The first is the lack of a tilde over two questions »what»:
«And I wonder with what moral Canonical?
Of course, it should be seen that "binaries" explicitly refer to ... ».
In the first sentence, there is also a punctuation error. The most appropriate thing would be: "And I wonder, with what Canonical morality?" In the second, I find it more specific to replace the "what" with "which": "[...] it would be necessary to see which" binaries "they refer to ...".
The second error, in the last paragraph, is the omission of a diacritic: «If you ask me, […]». The correct thing to do is: "If you ask me, […]".
Well, that was it. Long ago I did not take the time to comment on this, but I think it is the small way I can contribute so that your and Gaara's posts (I also used to make corrections) are better written and therefore improve the level of the blog . Regards.
No problem. Moreover, I thank you for the corrections, because as a human being, I am wrong .. Thank you.
You're welcome, we all dodge each other.
sorry and what is the correct configuration supposed to be to be safer with linnux mint 15, thanks
Stamina Debian
In the end Ubuntu says ironically: "Linux for human beigns" (Linux for human beings). Ubuntu would be nothing without Debian. Why doesn't Ubuntu ask Debian for a license to use its binary packages? (I understand that asking for a license is buying it to use legally since at no time does it explicitly say that it asked for money).
For years I stopped using ubuntu because it did not satisfy me at all, I started using LM and I was very happy. For me, every canonical day is a worse company and I don't like the path that has been going on for years.
My impression is that every day is a little more the "windows of distributions"
I am really tired of reading news against canonical, it seems that it is fashionable to hit them even by the slightest opinion of a developer.
In related news, Ubuntu wrinkles… Mir is not coming for 14.04
http://www.muylinux.com/2013/11/19/ubuntu-14-04-no-mir
Quack!
Every day that passes, I see how Canonical is degraded more and more, and therefore its flagship product Ubuntu. If Ubuntu is based on Debian Sid, what in the wild would ask to pay for developments based on Debian binary packages? I think that if Canonical does not set its course towards being fully identified with Real Free Software - as they did only a few years ago - we will soon see it out of our world.
I would say that it would be a shame, but as they are with Canonical / Ubuntu ...
Hopefully, at some point Canonical was going to react aggressively to the popularity of Linux Mint. In this case it seems a bit unfair and defamatory.
I'm a software developer and I've been using Linux Mint as my sole system for a few years. Right now I'm using version 16 RC with Cinnamon and it really works wonders. I found in this distribution a solid base and above all consistent between versions. They have evolved into a place where I feel comfortable.
It was my understanding that the "Update Manager" was simply a graphical interface for "apt." I did a quick test setting the "Update Manager" to see levels 4 and 5 and nothing in "apt" at the configuration level changed. Surely the level filters are only in the "Update Manager" (I think).
This raises a concern for me: If I update my system by executing "aptitude update && aptitude full-upgrade -y" (which I always do…) the level preferences of the "Update Manager" are applied or everything is simply updated. I think everything is simply updated, being as safe as Ubuntu is. Do any of you know?
Well, exactly what you suspect, I suspect. I think that "Security" is only implemented with the Update Manager, which in the end, is what the user normally uses to update .. 😉
I agree.
I think many people have no notion of how important software updates are and the impact they have on the security and stability of the system.
It is valid to ask to what extent an operating system should solve certain questions. How much knowledge a user must have to be able to use their computer "safely."
Then, which is worse, that your password is "1234" or that your system allows that your password is "1234". In this sense I believe that the interference of the average user in security matters should be minimal.
That's right friend. If the System were more secure, the user would be more secure .. 😀
How morally could Canonical charge to use Ubuntu? With all your right. Don't forget that "free is not for free", in Stallman's own words.
But returning to the subject, the criticisms of those Canonical employees are absurd. How are we doing at home? With all that garbage from the lens, all the searches that users make in the Dash are registered on the Ubuntu servers. Were you looking for important documents? Canonical already knows. Any bank invoice? Are you already registered. And Shuttleworth lied when he said the searches are anonymous. If everything is anonymous in Ubuntu, why the GeoIP? It is obvious that the user interaction with the Dash and the lenses is geolocated thanks to the GeoIP module.
As a participant in the Ubuntu community, I say that Canonical is teasing us too much
Linux mint and derivatives of ubuntu should have their own repositories.
Not critical of Canonical and its Ubuntu goals, there are plenty of good distro for all tastes to be criticizing.
Excellent opinion.
Canonical every day they bury themselves with their words.
Really a license to use your binaries? It is the most illogical since it is Open Source.
Before giving my opinion, I am not from either side (Ubuntu or Mint) and less from Microsoft.
My opinion is that they fear the competition (Linux Mint) is the most popular distribution based on Ubuntu and aesthetically better than the Ubuntu interface, and these words are known to me by developers of x system (Windows) XD against other Systems Operational since fewer users equals less popularity equals less income.
In short, day by day they are becoming the shadow of Microsoft.
Today opensuse 13.1 was released, I hope soon to stop using distros * buntu
I am saved from those distros because I am using Debian Wheezy at home.
I think these types of discussions are increasingly out of place.
Much is said about the NSA, espionage and things like that, but every time they forget that many times, the same people are the ones who get their own safety in the dark. Many times, I see these types of attitudes as tantrums, since many times, the people who use these distros are just as responsible for the integrity of that distro as the developers of these.
This complaint does not attract my attention. However, seeing that they mix potatoes and sweet potatoes, the truth is that with this type of discussion they motivate anyone not to use Ubuntu and other derivatives for the simple fact of not showing maturity in the face of small problems.
Still, do you think the NSA itself used the information for plans like taking over the world or using us as lab rats? Just take a look at this article and tell me if what the NSA have done, apart from PRISM and their pathetic ethics, is justified (and by the way, in the comments a complaint has been lit up that was simply lazy to feed the troll that was there and barely Arkham Parkinson shut him down for once).
"A great civilization is not conquered from without until it destroys itself from within" from the movie apocalypto
In my point of view, Canonical deviated a bit, and regarding its forms of entry, I think it is exaggerating a bit, and according to the quality of Ubuntu, personally it leaves a little to be desired, I for the moment went to OpenSuse, I'll think about the next Ubuntu LTS when it comes out.
As a comment on the previous page says, behind all these issues are companies and not projects. In both gnome, systemd / udev, wayland, there is Red Hat, and in unity, upstart, mir, there is Canonical. Both companies initiate legal actions and have the same policy with binaries, logos and brands (don't even think of Clement using official rpms, or naming them, there have already been lawsuits). There are people who believe in a supposed majority in community (which community: users, distros, devs, gnu, open source, libre, or linuxera?). Ubuntu makes its decisions in another supposed majority of 20M users. The reality is that there are distros like debian that are completely neutral to these fights between companies, and others like gentoo made alternatives of their own. The community and majorities are relative. In 2003 the commercial, majority and community standard was rpm and RH clone distros. And now? They release steam first in deb, countless PPAs and clonbuntus, and even gnu-supported distros follow apt / deb. Why didn't the "community" support an LSB standard that was also communal? apparently the community changed its mind, who knows if in 10 years it will do it again.
Greetings community:
The way I see it, I think canonical is starting to “choke kicks” since its popularity has been on the decline since it developed its unity, which led to the migration towards derived distributions and its popularization (to tell you in some way ) mainly from linux mint.
o_O
I think a lot of anger is distilled against Ubuntu, for free. But anyway, it's what's on this blog and I'm used to it; so I will not get into discussions of this generality.
What doesn't seem like a receipt is that the article says this:
License to use Ubuntu binaries? Seriously? Now the only thing missing is that you have to pay to use the Canonical distribution or worse, pay to make a derivative. And I wonder, with what moral Canonical?
Sure, it would be necessary to see which "binaries" they refer to explicitly, I think they refer to packages related to Canonical Partners, but there is a contradiction here: Isn't Ubuntu supposed to be an Open Source distribution? "
That "Now the only thing left is that you have to pay to use the Canonical distribution or worse, pay to make a derivative." What is she coming for? Why do you sow these kinds of tricks if you have not even verified their veracity?
That of ¿With what moral Canonical?… What is it? moral? You're kidding, right?
And that of "Isn't Ubuntu supposed to be an Open Source distribution?" ... I thought this blog was serious ... Look at the Linux ecosystem and answer yourself.
As you like cizañar, you can see that you enjoy.
Come on .. another one ..
I don't sow anything. The sowing is being done by Canonical and Filo, my Ubuntu is neither going nor coming. His objective has already been fulfilled at the time. What does bother me (like many), is that they have gained "the trust" of many users by selling them the idea of a completely Free OS and now they get off with the number of using licenses for their binaries.
Yes, moral .. Do you know what that word means?
And I believed that I had the right to think as I understand .. What Ecosystem do I have to look at? What do I have to see? How little by little Canonical will want to follow in the footsteps of RedHat or worse, Apple?
For my part, I use Iceweasel in LMDE 2013 03 update pack 7, waiting for the next version of this browser in the Debian Testing repositories. My query is am I sacrificing my security by using Iceweasel instead of the latest version of Firefox available for LMDE?
If those of Linux Mint suffer with Canonical that they base their star distro on Debian or Red Hat and so the soap opera ends. Much criticize Ubuntu but then they do not become independent or throw boiling oil at them: P.
Very well said editor, I have sent Ubuntu to fly for a long time, the fact that I have people for them does not give them more quality, I prefer a thousand times to get involved with Debian or LMDE than using Ubuntu, nor would I use it here if it came pre-installed. Too bad it may be becoming wanting to monopolize the entire market and not pay attention to what they really are, a distro that before with gnome 2 was the best but now with Unity and its alliances they drive away more than one.
Greetings.
What bad news, che ...
This kind of news only divides the Linux community.
A shame for the Ubuntera community…: S They should learn from us! 🙂 Haha!
Hug! Paul.
The good thing about GNU / Linux is that if you don't like something, then move on to another, at some point I used Ubuntu and I didn't dislike it, besides it did a lot to bring GNU / Linux closer to many users, one thing doesn't take away another. His new directions may not appeal to many people, in fact I fled Ubuntu a long time ago, I simply made use of my freedom to choose what seemed best for me and returned to my beloved Opensuse which is the one I use on my computer desktop, on the laptop I have Debian 7 with Mate and I'm happy 🙂
Linux Mint always seemed like a refreshing alternative to Ubuntu, and its LMDE version seems fabulous, I think it is a very good alternative.
I personally don't like Canonical's attitude, but they will know what they're doing.
Peace and love
I have been using Ubuntu since its inception. Before I used other distros. Mainly, I used Debian. I decided to switch to Ubuntu definitively when starting with the LTS. Everything was going perfectly, I was adopting the updates, from 8.04 LTS, and I got to 12.04 LTS without no problem.
Then the possibility of updating to version 14.04 LTS came out. After thinking about it, I decided to face the update and the problems began. The machine and the new kernel were not understood. A disaster.
I decided to save data and do a fresh installation of the 14.04 LTS.
Nothing. No way. Kernel error.
Tried with 12.04 Same, Kernel error.
Then I understood what was happening. I started from 8.04 LTS and I accepted each and every one of the updates that were offered to me, and of course, the Kernel was updated, but it did not change to the new version that they use since 10, I think, and the machine worked well, I had enough Ram, but the processor was short for the new kernel, so, after numerous unsuccessful attempts I decided to try Linux Mint 17.1 and ... oh, surprise ... when installing they offer you the possibility of doing the installation with the kernel 3.13… generic that adapts 100% to my computer. And there I am. With a Linux Mint, Cinnamon 17.1 and with the possibility of updating and being able to choose which kernel to have and which not.
This possibility is not given by Ubuntu. A shame
This is my testimony Greetings to all