1376
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 36 points 1 week ago
[-] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 week ago
[-] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)
[-] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

💥 Free for up to 5 machines 💣

[-] cyborganism@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 week ago

What are the benefits/features that this adds?

[-] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

10 years security updates, plus security patches for community packages (instead of waiting on community patches). It's basically the corporate support plan provided for free for up to 5 machines per account.

[-] cyborganism@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 week ago

security patches for community packages (instead of waiting on community patches)

I'm not sure I understand that part. Is Canonical implementing the patches instead of the open source project/package developers? I'm confused.

[-] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Exactly. In Debian, the community implements security patches. In Ubuntu, Canonical implements security patches for a part of the repo (main), the community implements them for the remainder (universe). This has been the standard since Ubuntu's inception. With Ubuntu Pro, Canonical implements security patches for the whole repo (main and universe).

[-] cyborganism@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago

So they're actively involved in the development of open source projects then?

[-] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Not necessarily. For all of these cases, Debian, Ubuntu, Pro, the community and Canonical are package maintainers. Implementing patches means means one of: grabbing a patch from upstream and applying it to a package (least work, no upstream contribution); deriving a patch for the package from the latest upstream source (more work, no upstream contribution); creating a fix that doesn't exist upstream and applying it to the package (most work, possible upstream contribution). I don't know what their internal process is for this last case but I imagine they publish fixes. I've definitely seen Canonical upstreaming bug fixes in GNOME, because that's where I have been paying attention to at some point in time. If you consider submitting such patches upstream as actively involved in project development, then they are actively involved. I probably wouldn't consider that active involvement just like I don't consider myself actively involved when I submit a bug fix to some project.

[-] cyborganism@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago

Ah ok I see. Thanks for the clarification.

[-] gregor@gregtech.eu 3 points 1 week ago

Ubuntu is awesome Change my mind

[-] BeardedGingerWonder@feddit.uk 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Yeah, it's fine. Haven't had too much trouble in a good 10 odd years, once the WiFi drivers settled. Mind you I'm not fucking upgrading to 24.04 for another couple of weeks.

[-] iopq@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

Spent a ton of time trying to install GrapheneOS because web USB doesn't work in snap version of chrome. How about letting me install the normal deb version? Nope, can't let the user choose

[-] copd@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

What's the hate with ubuntu? Or is it just elitism/gatekeeping?

[-] tsugu@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 week ago

Pretty much. Canonical made a few questionable choices in the past but overall they've done a lot for the Linux community. And their distro is very good. There is a reason why distros choose it as their base.

this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2024
1376 points (96.8% liked)

linuxmemes

20707 readers
731 users here now

I use Arch btw


Sister communities:

Community rules

  1. Follow the site-wide rules and code of conduct
  2. Be civil
  3. Post Linux-related content
  4. No recent reposts

Please report posts and comments that break these rules!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS