New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
Alma, no? Thx.
KDE gang, debian rulez, who uses ubuntu even?
Debian + Gnome 👀👀
how do I get 50 devices without joining their cult?
Just because it costs money doesn't mean it's not open-source. Open-source and "free software" means that it's free as in freedom, not free as in price.
This doesn't look like a new version of Ubuntu; rather it looks like regular Ubuntu with extra security hardening - 10 years of updates (including for universe packages which are usually not in scope for long-term security updates), kernel livepatch, and NIST-certified FIPS module.
Create 10 fake accounts, easy.
I guess they woudln't know because they value people privacy. It would mean that they never track your login, devices, etc.
right?
For personal use = no server?
I am trying to understand what is being offered with Ubuntu Pro. Is it as simple as a better-secured Ubuntu? Does it imply that ordinary Ubuntu users are more vulnerable than Ubuntu Pro users?
Ignoring the externals like signing up for an account, enterprise expenses, better support for paying customers, etc., what are the operational differences between Ubuntu Pro and ordinary Ubuntu? Security only? Performance? Something else?
Withholding known available security patches from one group of customers does not feel like good security practice to me. Your system is either secure or vulnerable, which could turn into "secure or pwned".
What simple obvious thing am I missing here?
It reads to me as a renamed/expanded LTS Extended Security Maintenance / Ubuntu Advantage, which is already a paid subscription to get security updates beyond the normal maintenance window. Ordinary ubuntu lts users are no less secure, as long as they don't keep a major os version longer than the normal 5 year support window. Just like LTS now, if you want updates for more than 5 years, you can pay, or in this case sign up for a free personal use account if it's not for business.
If you're using a super old OS and not paying for updates, yeah, you're less secure. This isn't a new business model, ubuntu already does this, as does RHEL, and hell I think even Microsoft offers extended support for old windows if you're willing to pay.
It's just longer security support for LTS versions beyond standard eol plus livepatch (or whatever it is called, meaning Ubuntu's own kernelcare competitor) and replacing the old Ubuntu Advantage program - plus (as with Ubuntu Advantage) the option to book extra support plus some (included or extra?) options to meet (U.S.) government compliance requirements, e.g. FIPS 140 cryptography certifications, etc.
There was no Ubuntu before Canonical. Canonical Ltd. was founded by Mark Shuttleworth in March 2004 to promote Ubuntu and market its commercial interests/projects. They have been responsible for releasing every version since the initial 4.10 Warty Warthog version back in October 2004. So, Ubuntu before Canonical cannot be way better as it wasn't a thing.
Why ? please elaborate for less informed like me.
I would buy it when it would support my phone. I am long dreaming to the time when a cheap phone like DOOGEE or the like would run linux of any kind.
I found an older archive of ubuntu.com from archive.org . Canonical was marketing ubuntu related products and services while sponsering as they say. They were involved in core development of the project as that was happening from community members though they were sponsering the project. Later Canonical get more involved in decision making and enteripse services rather than providing community services to the enterprise as that was mentioned on the front page of ubuntu from archieve. Earlier ubuntu was FOSS model based which no longer in existense when canonical starts searching for sponsers and investors themselves years earlier.
Here is the link
There's no volume or margins.
There is userbase in millions of consumers.
What? How would Microsoft interest in Canonical show up in source code before such a deal occurred?
This is enterprise. [edit: most] Consumers don't have 5+ machines or volume.
Consumers really don't need to be on 5+ year old OS' these days. This isn't for them.
At scale of millions active users things starts to fold.
Here are the commercial benefits even from regular consumers:
Whatever man. If anything it would be awesome to have master daddy Microsoft in relation to Ubuntu.
Microsoft owns github, the biggest greatest, most massive open source hub / repository service ever. Nobody complained, still massive. Service is better...
The ads have begun
thank you for your observation.
Damn, people really hate/dislike Ubuntu.
Not everyone in this thread dislikes/hates Ubuntu (I certainly don't), but it seems that Ubuntu is an easy target of dislike/hate for some people
One can rightly criticize particular decisions that Canonical have made in the past without necessarily throwing out the baby (= Ubuntu) with the bathwater (= the particular decisions criticized)
This gets even more interesting now with the other thread about Debian allowing non-free firmware packages in its official installers. I wonder if these same people throwing a fit about Ubuntu will now start using Red Hat and CentOS instead?
tier: updates (Free usage; This machine beta tests new patches.)
tier: updates (Free usage; This machine beta tests new patches.)
tier: updates (Free usage; This machine beta tests new patches.)
Right? However, I don’t understand why anyone would throw a fit at all. It’s just drivers that are being included at no extra cost to make people’s lives easier… who actually wants to wrestle the OS to get WiFi working? 😂
I would love to see Linux Mint based on Ubuntu Pro in future.> @tjn said:
It's the principle of the thing. It's about being open and transparent about what is free and what is not. Inform the consumer about shoving down their throats a proprietary software! A simple information message requesting a basic consent is not so hard to code.
They start with some drivers, and next thing you know it, we find a subscription for software and long term support, while the free consumers get to be "beta tests for new patches" of customers who pay.
Call me insane, but this is just traditional corporatism greed to make money later from something developed for free by others, previously made out of passion and love for technology.
So what is the point in keeping LTS version after PRO goes live?