I can smell the desperation coming from Canonical...
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Canonical Developer Criticizes Linux Mint's Security
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by who_me View PostWhen an Arch developer said about the same about Manjaro I saw nobody on Phoronix flip their shit. Actually, I don't even remember Phoronix covering it, but if someone at Canonical even farts, oh boy, oh boy, they (Phoronix and other outlets) will be all over that along with the hate bandwagon of trolls and zealots
Here. Have at boys!
http://allanmcrae.com/2013/01/manjar...for-stability/
But it's also true that Canonical/Ubuntu are much bigger than Arch and Manjaro, and with more power comes more responsibility.
Supposedly, all the linux distros are about openness and giving you a choice while cooperating with everyone else in the FOSS world without.
Linux Mint is one of the very few that actually acts that way.
Comment
-
Originally posted by nomadewolf View PostI can smell the desperation coming from Canonical...
So if Mint guys are disabling stuff - we all need to worry about that. What are the mint devs doing? Why? Are they actually pushing security stuff through a different route? If yes - what is it?
Comment
-
Originally posted by who_me View Postan Arch developer said
Comment
-
Originally posted by FLHerne View PostRespect for being scientific and producing data that should actually mean something - there really isn't enough of that around here.
That said, those Wikipedia numbers just look...wrong. No way does Ubuntu have 50x more users than other major distros like Fedora, Mint and SUSE; the 'Linux Other' column contains almost twice as much traffic as all other entries combined despite all major and some minor distros being shown individually.
Comment
-
Originally posted by prodigy_ View PostFirst, Arch is a non-profit community-based distro. Second, a random blog article doesn't mean they have an agenda. On the other hand Canonical obviously does (Mark & Co. rabidly attack everyone and everything they see as a threat starting with Wayland).
Like I said, rabid zealots and trolls. The phoronix forums are a cesspool.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Goddard View PostSaying DistroWatch is a bad source is just like when my teachers would say Wikipedia is a bad source. It always felt like a discrediting statement especially when I would write papers sourcing the material, but say it came from an encyclopedia. In other words it may not be as good as getting a piece of software on every single Linux system reporting which distro they are using, but it is as good as it gets.
However when one says Wikipedia is a bad source, I'd say no(mostly). Again statistics isn't always a good source, but Wikipedia isn't only a source of these data, but also many other things. When it comes to numbers, Wikipedia has a strict rule that avoids assumption of the relevance of those data, unless it is provably true, or the data was obtained from extra-high accuracy scientific measurements and has near-zero chance of a major error.
The conclusion: Wikipedia is not a bad source, but since it's not the same concept as DistroWatch, the (specifically) popularity ranking of DistroWatch is highly probably(I personally think it actually is, but I don't have proof) a bad source.
Comment
-
Originally posted by prodigy_ View PostFirst, Arch is a non-profit community-based distro. Second, a random blog article doesn't mean they have an agenda. On the other hand Canonical obviously does (Mark & Co. rabidly attack everyone and everything they see as a threat starting with Wayland).
The developer adressed a valid point which should raise concerns about Mints handling of that issue and what other distributions could learn from that. Not start another shitstorm about canonical.
So what is your agenda here?
Comment
Comment