Canonical: Mint must pay $$ for licenses. (And it's dangerous!)

Yes, quite a catchy thread title but after last month mini-brawl also a new Canonical development.
First, the brawl;
According to Canonical employee Oliver Grawert (as Distrowatch.com reports on last month Ubuntu vs. Mint mini-brawl). link

Oliver Grawert couldn't fathom the Mint update system with 1-5 levels, 1-3 all offer automatic updates and 4 and 5 only at user discretion. Mint doesn't keep anything from the user.

Other Ubuntu/Canonical employees also struggled severely, understanding the nature of Mint Update.

Mint dev Clement Lefebvre responded;

Second and much more interesting, Ubuntu has announced that Mint should pay $$ as Canonical is 'licensing the right to access Ubuntu's package repositories.'

Licensing some free binary packages and asking top-dollar, mmm! I think it was only some weeks ago, yes, here: link
A bit different than licensing your competitors out of the OEM market but still.

edit; Clement Lefebvre blog link

 

I never used Mint, knowing its way of treating kernel updates. I also think it will create big security concerns by not allowing kernel updates.
Very stupid to do so, it you ask me.

 

With all due respect, then you don't know Mint (Update) or it's way of treating kernel updates.
Level 1-3 updates are considered rock-solid, offering the consistent user-experience, Mint users appreciate.
Users can choose to install level 4/5 updates and have it up-to-Ubuntu-kernel level, if they so desire.
'Not allowing kernel updates' is a myth, often repeated but based on nothing.
See above Clement Lefebvre blog link.

 

The binary package thing - unfortunate, I guess they are only free as in beer, not FOSS. Makes the argument for LMDE stronger.p

As I don't use Mint I can't comment on holding back kernel updates being a good or bad thing in practice.

One thing I noticed on reading the documenation at http://www.linuxmint.com/documentation.php is that security updates could be held back when levels 4 and 5 are not selected for updates.
So maybe all that is needed a bit better documentation so users can make a better informed choice ?

Based on the fact its the default setting I guess ?

Cheers, Nick

 

At the end of the day businesses will always be businesses and anyone who thinks Canonical is the saviour of the light because they push Linux is in for a wake up call.

 

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Actually I think they're right about the security stuff though. Mint's out-of-the-box configuration is awful.

 

This may sounds harsh, but money talks. Without cash flow, most of the projects die away.

 

Thanks for enlightening. I admit I did not know the update mechanism of Mint.
However, I think the typical users of Mint are the ones who do not like to customize their OS (one of the selling point of Mint is "working out of box") therefore they most likely just keep the default update settings. As a result, they will miss at least some of the important security updates.

I think Ubuntu is doing a great job pushing updates to the users' desktop - automatic and painless.

 

Agreed that Mint users will benefit from a more proper explanation on what they gain and lose by sticking to default. Not informing fist-time linux users doesn't do them any service.
As programs like Firefox or Chrome are updated like Ubuntu, I'd like to know how much more 'danger' a Mint user is actually in, compared to an Ubuntu user.
The default setting doesn't mean users are 'not allowed by Mint to install security updates'.
Discouraged, yes, barred, no.

Mint users are likely to stay in their comfort zone, neglecting security benefits from certain updates. They also seem more likely to be oblivious of such updates.
It's not a hot topic on the Mint forum and it never has been during the years I've used Mint and frequented their forum.
I'd really be interested if anyone could actually quantify the level of 'danger' by keeping back kernel updates/security-related updates between Mint and Ubuntu.

 

Pretty spot on, yes. I have watched many a distro fall. Linux and its community isn't a mystical wonderland where everyone shares their toys, everyone gets along and all work for the good of the people while fighting the big bad Microsoft and Apple giants. Humans are humans and, as already said, business is business.

 

Why is it awful?
You can go safely on Windows without any updates for months.
Why can't you do that in Linux?

And you do get updates, plenty of them.

As usual, the security card is overrated, overplayed.

Mrk

 

I guess it's all about what the major strength of the OS that has been advertized for years, and also what ppl are expecting from a certain OS.

Windows has been criticized for being insecure for many years, so when Windows 8/8.1 significantly improved the build-in security, ppl feel comfortable knowing they are safer; Linux is an OS that is known for being "the" secure OS, so when Mint degraded the security off the baseline, it certainly is not a good thing.

Sure, Mint is still safer than Windows, however ppl's expectation is very different from Windows and Linux.

 

Good question. I've posted this before but I'll post it again:

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Security/Features

Ubuntu and Ubuntu-based distros look to have a rather impressive security feature set - at default no less.

 

I don't know about that. I want to run my Linux exactly the same I used to run Windows. Fast, secure and easy to use.

 

well, what I meant was if just in case you get viruses on Windows, it not very surprising. now if you get a virus in Linux, then that's something ppl really would not expect.

 

A lot of people say Mint is good and such.
It was interesting for me to as KDE until trying to install software would brake it often.
I would put MInt robustness under Ubuntu and OpenSUSE .
Lack of updates also makes it look bad compared to Ubuntu or OpenSUSE ,that receive updates fluently.
It seems that one of the competitors will kill it and this is not good on the market.
I would add fishy connectivity sometimes from Mint when some repository programs were installed ,so it s not that secure indeed.