5 ms·

> it gives a false sense of security Why is getting the latest security updates giving a false sense of security exactly? > The File Manager UI, for example,

> it gives a false sense of security Why is getting the latest security updates giving a false sense of security exactly? > The File Manager UI, for example, lacks too many features and user must investigate alternatives and either assume that everything is all right or deeply examine security vulnerabilities for each available option. Same goes for basic things like text editor or calculator and so on. This is where you're being unfair, the notion that the default file manager is not good enough is subjective, it is plenty good for most people. (Finder for macOS also lacks many features, yet many people never bother with alternatives). Moreover, if you do need to find a replacement, if it is in the official repos, it probably means it is popular enough to be solid. As for things like an editor,, are you telling me that Notepad is more featured than gedit?

wander_homer 10y ago
> Why is getting the latest security updates giving a false sense of security exactly? Because in quite a few distributions you don't get security updates reliably. For example Debian Stable excludes most WebKit-based libraries from their update policy. https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/amd64/release-notes/ch-information.en.html#browser-security https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/amd64/release-notes/c... So users of browsers like Midori and Epiphany or E-Mail-Clients like Evolution on Debian Stable, currently end up using a WebKit library that hasn't been updated in more than a year. The same issue applies to Ubuntu and most of its derivatives as well. E.g. Ubuntu 14.04 users get a WebKitGTK+ library which hasn't been updated in almost a year. http://changelogs.ubuntu.com/changelogs/pool/main/w/webkitgtk/webkitgtk_2.4.10-0ubuntu0.14.04.1/changelog http://changelogs.ubuntu.com/changelogs/pool/main/w/webkitgt... Of course, the user doesn't get a warning dialog when he installs applications which rely on those outdated and insecure libraries. Ubuntu users also shouldn't rely on packages from the Universe repository (which are by far the most packages), if they care about security. Those packages are community maintained and often don't get a single update in years. In the past they didn't even update Chromium reliably.
- m45t3r 10y ago
  This is why I think Rolling Release is the only viable model of Linux distribution in desktops. Instead of overloading a team of security experts expecting them to backport every security change to the stable version of a package, they simply follow upstream releases, build it and make sure that isn't horrible broken (however, they can't be sure that the upgrade path is seamless for every possible configuration). BTW, it is possible to check in Ubuntu which packages are supported or not: http://manpages.ubuntu.com/manpages/xenial/man1/check-support-status.1.html http://manpages.ubuntu.com/manpages/xenial/man1/check-suppor...
- pikzen 10y ago
  You. Are. Not. Supposed. To. Install. Debian. Stable. On. A. Desktop. Machine. How many times will this have to be repeated? Stable is for servers. If you're running webkit based libraries on your server you have other issues. For desktops, both Testing and Unstable are the valid options.
  - kasabali 10y ago
    that's like ... your opinion. the way you try tu make it look as if it's a widely accepted best practice among Debian users is not cool. Debian stable is a perfectly viable distribution for desktop use.
    - pikzen 10y ago
      Except... it is? Having spoken with quite a few people on #debian, hell, even a simple google search agrees with that. Don't use stable unless you have a very old machine. Using stable brings you... stability and three years old packages. Using testing brings you stability and six months old packages. Using unstable brings you stability and sometimes fun things and one week old packages. For the Personal Anecdote Bonus Points, even sysadmin friends that swear by stable would tell me to use testing for a desktop distro.
      - kasabali 10y ago

wander_homer 10y ago

> Why is getting the latest security updates giving a false sense of security exactly? Because in quite a few distributions you don't get security updates reliably. For example Debian Stable excludes most WebKit-based libraries from their update policy. https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/amd64/release-notes/ch-information.en.html#browser-security https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/amd64/release-notes/c... So users of browsers like Midori and Epiphany or E-Mail-Clients like Evolution on Debian Stable, currently end up using a WebKit library that hasn't been updated in more than a year. The same issue applies to Ubuntu and most of its derivatives as well. E.g. Ubuntu 14.04 users get a WebKitGTK+ library which hasn't been updated in almost a year. http://changelogs.ubuntu.com/changelogs/pool/main/w/webkitgtk/webkitgtk_2.4.10-0ubuntu0.14.04.1/changelog http://changelogs.ubuntu.com/changelogs/pool/main/w/webkitgt... Of course, the user doesn't get a warning dialog when he installs applications which rely on those outdated and insecure libraries. Ubuntu users also shouldn't rely on packages from the Universe repository (which are by far the most packages), if they care about security. Those packages are community maintained and often don't get a single update in years. In the past they didn't even update Chromium reliably.

m45t3r 10y ago
This is why I think Rolling Release is the only viable model of Linux distribution in desktops. Instead of overloading a team of security experts expecting them to backport every security change to the stable version of a package, they simply follow upstream releases, build it and make sure that isn't horrible broken (however, they can't be sure that the upgrade path is seamless for every possible configuration). BTW, it is possible to check in Ubuntu which packages are supported or not: http://manpages.ubuntu.com/manpages/xenial/man1/check-support-status.1.html http://manpages.ubuntu.com/manpages/xenial/man1/check-suppor...
pikzen 10y ago
You. Are. Not. Supposed. To. Install. Debian. Stable. On. A. Desktop. Machine. How many times will this have to be repeated? Stable is for servers. If you're running webkit based libraries on your server you have other issues. For desktops, both Testing and Unstable are the valid options.
- kasabali 10y ago
  that's like ... your opinion. the way you try tu make it look as if it's a widely accepted best practice among Debian users is not cool. Debian stable is a perfectly viable distribution for desktop use.
  - pikzen 10y ago
    Except... it is? Having spoken with quite a few people on #debian, hell, even a simple google search agrees with that. Don't use stable unless you have a very old machine. Using stable brings you... stability and three years old packages. Using testing brings you stability and six months old packages. Using unstable brings you stability and sometimes fun things and one week old packages. For the Personal Anecdote Bonus Points, even sysadmin friends that swear by stable would tell me to use testing for a desktop distro.
    - kasabali 10y ago