- cross-posted to:
- ubuntu@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- ubuntu@lemmy.ml
You must log in or # to comment.
Paying for services isn’t philosophically incompatible with FOSS, that’s how companies like RedHat broke through back in the day, but paying for “quick and high-quality security updates” strikes me as alarming. Am I to take from that that they’re holding back high-quality security updates from some users? Unless maybe we’re talking about extended support for EoL software.
Ubuntu Pro gives you 5 more years of security updates for versions that are EoL. You can see it here if you scroll down to the maintenance schedule https://ubuntu.com/security/esm
Glad to hear it’s extended maintenance for old software and not making their private users less secure.
Unfortunately, it’s both. They also hold back security updates for non-latest releases that are still covered under Standard support. I work in an environment where we track new CVEs for our builds, and we constantly see vulnerabilities for 22.04 that are fixed in Pro but not made available otherwise.
Sure, technically you can opt into Pro as an individual user without paying, but it puts everyone who uses off the shelf installs and containers at risk and is therefore an immoral and unethical process in my opinion.
I take it your build is dependant on the community-maintained Universe repo?
https://ubuntu.com/security/cves/about#security
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Repositories/Ubuntu
https://askubuntu.com/questions/1452497/what-are-esm-apps-and-how-do-they-relate-to-ubuntu-proIf they already to the work for esm-apps repo then they could at least send those fixes over to the universe repo until the release version is EoL one would think. On the other hand I have no idea what lives in universe and what lives in main.
That was a rabbit hole.
Pro involves Canonical making unilateral updates to certain packages, while the main universe relies on the package’s maintainers to make updates available. Unless you were to want Canonical to take over development of every bit of linux software, I don’t see how they could improve this.
for 22.04
What about 25.10?
That one is not LTS, you’ll want to update to 26.04 sooner rather than later.
yea I would say that’s what home users should be doing anyways? idk to me it doesn’t make sense to be so far behind on updates when the non-LTS is available
Well, correct me if I’m wrong, but RedHat also had more recent updates compared to CentOS, while also being certified.
None of this affects what happened “back in the day” which is what I was talking about.
That said, my understanding of the current packaging philosophy of RHEL/CentOS Stream is that embargoed security fixes go in to RHEL first, then to CentOS Stream once the embargo is lifted (that’s pretty much as you’d expect), otherwise everything goes in to CentOS Stream first. Unless you have counter-examples I’ve not heard of?
Saving you a click: No.
But, consider donating to your distro of choice.
TIL as a normal Ubuntu user, you don’t get quick and high-quality security updates.
You do, but not when your distro is EoL and not with livepatching to avoid reboots.
Not true. 22.04 is not EoL and it doesn’t get all CVE patches backported unless you’re on Pro.
Huh, that was hidden deeper than I like. https://ubuntu.com/security/cves/about#security
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Repositories/Ubuntu
https://askubuntu.com/questions/1452497/what-are-esm-apps-and-how-do-they-relate-to-ubuntu-proedit: adding some relevant links
From the link:
Here, the Ubuntu developers roll out in-house universe security patches (additional backports of new patches against historical versions of the packages), which was previously not available
I’m not sure every package should be considered supported in LTS, so this not being available by default looks ok for me
If you need what they provide, I don’t see why not. It’s great to monetarily support open source. Devs need to eat too.
Seems fine, I don’t see why a home/DIY user would stay on an Ubuntu LTS release for more than 5 years.
I’d gladly pay, and I do support some foss projects.
However I would not pay Canonical for anything. I don’t like their products or some of their practices.
We have to invest time for the helpdesk. It’s may be ours, or others (in paying for it). However, I think the Odoo experience show how much this economic model is an incentive to get the software as hard as possible to maintain.
Maybe we sall have many cooperatives, independents or hire people instead
