I think it's a terrible shame. For all the stuff I wish it did better, it does so much right that I still overwhelmingly consider it the best distro for converting friends and family away from Windows or OSX, even if I don't use it myself.
I think it's a terrible shame. For all the stuff I wish it did better, it does so much right that I still overwhelmingly consider it the best distro for converting friends and family away from Windows or OSX, even if I don't use it myself.
We are currently going through a bit of a Cambrian explosion of Linux distributions, but some do have indeed shaky technical foundations. Many distributions would fare much better if they were built as a thin layer on top of something clean and reproducible like Gentoo, Arch or, ideally, GuixSD/NixOS.
In reality, we are seeing lots of distributions, like Mint, as a layer on top of Ubuntu. Which in turn is based on Debian. Seasoned users like those posting on LWN find this frustrating as it obscures things a lot.
Personally, I have not seen good technical foundations for Linux distributions aside from things that have either a very simple imperative architecture (like Arch) or purely functional (Nix/Guix).
Void is it’s own thing and xbps was really good when I used it. But since the thing where the one guy with sole control over their resources disappeared, and then losing their domain, and not having a distinct legal entity/org behind it last I checked... I dunno about longevity here despite the project being 10 years old already.
>Safe & Secure
>We’re built on GNU/Linux, one of the most secure systems in the world. It’s the same software powering the U.S Department of Defense, the Bank of China, and more.
Later on Mint developed its own profile, this was way before Cinnamon.
I believe this comment shows how a condescending communication style in FLOSS hurts goodwill and clogs the virtuous cycle of enthusiasm that fuels FLOSS.
Here's something that's true:
Debian Jessie ships a LTS Firefox for which it grants an exception to its strict package security update policy. That LTS Firefox version has its own support schedule, and its own arch support policy. Both of those skew from Debian's own policy and timeline.
This means that one of the two most popular browsers on Debian doesn't provide the same ARM support that Debian claims to support on its website. It also means that Debian updates Firefox on stable (as well as Chromium on stable) whole cloth. It doesn't backport security updates because Debian does not have the resources to take on such a difficult project.
That means for every Debian box set up as a user desktop, the two most popular packages cannot follow the package security guidelines that the quoted Debian fan/dev would hold up as one of Debian's strengths.
To be clear: when Firefox LTS released an update that worked perfectly fine on all of their supported archs, that release broke Firefox completely on Debian Jessie on ARM. In other words, you can install a Debian called "stable" on an arch they call "supported" and end up upgrading yourself into a state where an official Debian package no longer works.
In short-- all Debian stable packages are potentially "FrankenDebian" for this reason, and-- worse-- for really popular and important desktop packages.
Elementary logic and social skills dictate that the person I quoted should be finding common ground with Linux Mint devs. Say package maintenance is hard. Say security backports don't really scale anymore. Say random number generators are tricky to get right. Pointing out one's own failures and citing sources for the rare successes seems like a winning strategy to me. Or at least one that doesn't threaten to zap all the energy of the people one communicates with/about.
You'd think a project like Debian with its myriad guidelines and processes would have at least one sentence in there like, "Don't treat others like they're teenagers loitering outside your fast-food restaurant," or, "Don't be self-righteous." Or more pointed, "Don't talk down to other distros."
Is there a Debian dev here who agrees with my upshot? There's apparently this whole inculcation process to become a member, so maybe one of those sentences could be part of it.
The background for this seems to be that the maintainer decided to stop shipping security updates for certain packages. One of the people in the discussion put in some work to help rectify these and other packaging problems only have their changes reverted by the lead maintainer.
The project then proceeded to host their downloads with an insecure Wordpress blog. After serving malware, the response was to remove the malware and return to normal. When downloads were compromised a second time, however "briefly", the above discussion happened. In the light of that the discussion is a lot more civil than could be expected.
> I still overwhelmingly consider it the best distro for converting friends and family away from Windows or OSX
Unless the situation has improved significantly in those three years, perhaps you are not doing them a service moving them to more sparse security updates. It's 2019 now and security is not optional.
Entitled users exist, and can be a problem, but the situation here seems to be a lot more complicated than what the author wants to believe.