Reminder that Linux Mint is literally the worst distro, broken and insecure like hell

Reminder that Linux Mint is literally the worst distro, broken and insecure like hell.

lwn.net/Articles/676664/

reddit.com/r/linux/comments/4v116g/can_we_stop_recommending_linux_mint/

zdnet.com/article/hacker-hundreds-were-tricked-into-installing-linux-mint-backdoor/

omgubuntu.co.uk/2013/11/canonical-dev-dont-use-linux-mint-online-banking-unsecure

techrepublic.com/article/why-the-linux-mint-hack-is-an-indicator-of-a-larger-problem/

github.com/linuxmint/mintupdate/blob/master/usr/lib/linuxmint/mintUpdate/rules

github.com/linuxmint/mdm
packages.debian.org/source/jessie/mdm

tl;dr if you are new, just use Ubuntu

Other urls found in this thread:

github.com/linuxmint/mdm
packages.debian.org/source/jessie/mdm
github.com/linuxmint/mintupdate/blob/master/usr/lib/linuxmint/mintUpdate/rules
segfault.linuxmint.com/2013/11/answering-controversy-stability-vs-security-is-something-you-configure/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Why do you hate Mint so much, user? What do you gain from posting the same outdated info each day?

Tl;dr op is a faggot spreading outdated FUD

>Ubuntu
>spyware
Just use Debian.

>outdated
that's why package highjacking like

github.com/linuxmint/mdm
packages.debian.org/source/jessie/mdm

is still a thing and why security updates are still blocked, after 4 years of bully?

github.com/linuxmint/mintupdate/blob/master/usr/lib/linuxmint/mintUpdate/rules

>security updates are still blocked
Click two checkmarks and you're done.

An irrelevant thing because its not a problem for the overwhelming majority of users

...

those should be checked by default. Are they not? If they aren't, why the fuck not? Any operating system should be secure in the default configuration.

"""UNSAFE"""

"""DANGEROUS"""

aight user

Says who? Recently i saw a gui who ran outta space on his /
Reason being, he had like 50 kernels on his Ubuntu...
Clearly we dont want this kind of thing

>those should be checked by default

when you install, they ask you your preference.

Guys, when you need to choose between security and stability, there is something FUNDAMENTALLY going WRONG in development.

They ask you how you want it set up when you first boot it up.

Besides, kernel updates still break shit sometimes

Why should an installer even ask that? You're a distro targeted at non-Linux users and the not very technically proficient. You shouldn't let the default config be insecure. If the user is willing to go change that themselves, then so be it, it's their own lookout, but you shouldn't be asking them to do it.

Stability is no excuse. Even stick-in-the-mid distros like Debian and CentOS backport security fixes.

...

never understood why anyone would use mint
it's just ubuntu painted green and with security removed

*unsafe, dangerous* meaning that untested updates have broken wifi, gui, networking, proprietary graphics drivers, you name it

they've broken ubuntu, debian and mint hella times so they warn you

you can hold shift at boot and roll back kernel (basically all level 5 updates are kernel) when it breaks your shit

i've used mint from 17.1 to 18.1 on same install and never had anything break, but i don't have any special drivers. lots of people on the forums have had their shit break when updating kernel and that's not just Mint, Ubuntu as well

if they came out with non buggy ubuntu cinnamon flavored i would probably switch. Unity sucks, i've tried xubuntu and lubuntu and both those DE's are shit compared to cinnamon

Saying "I care more about shit not breaking than I do about new features, so I'm going to use an LTS distro/kernel" is fine. That's a perfectly legitimate choice to make.

Saying "..even to the point where I'm not going to apply security patches" is not.

>Why should an installer even ask that? You're a distro targeted at non-Linux users and the not very technically proficient.

because 'not very technically proficient' people don't know how to roll back the kernel when it breaks their proprietary drivers

and not very technically proficient people aren't running CIA servers with linux mint, they are grandmas and grandpas sending Obama joke chain emails and probably looking at baby pictures on facebook

I use slackware!

granpa, go to sleep, it's late

The Apple MacBook Pro with Retina Display doesn't have this problem.

I use Linux Mint because it's not Noobuntu.

Like I pointed out last time you started this same thread, CVE are right in the update applet ui.
Why do you keep posting this bs irregardless of facts shoved in your faggot face.
p.s. I don't give a fuck what debian names their packages.

lol

Ensuring that the stuff they ship is compatible and not broken is the responsibility of the distro and package maintainers anyway. Especially in a no-sharp-corners distro for the masses.

Normies, by virtue of not knowing much, are the ones who rely the most on their distro shipping a secure-by-default operating system. Because they don't know enough to follow CVE announcements, lock down their configurations, think about their threat model, etc. They don't want to and will resist if you try to make them.

And secure-by-default for normies means that you install security patches. By all means test them to try and find regressions before shipping them. But ship them you must, and in a timely fashion. If the user wants to opt out of this, let him learn how to use a package manager to pin versions and control things manually. Then he's advanced to the point where he can make his own decisions, and he's knowledgeable enough that you can't stop him anyway. But unless and until the user reaches that point, they should be told "You're getting security patches, like it or not"

>Saying "..even to the point where I'm not going to apply security patches" is not.

so what would you say to a Mint user like me who has installed every security update since 17.1? Congratulations?

windows forcing updates = bad
linux mint letting users choose what to install = bad

>linux mint letting users choose what to install
lel
let me fix this for you:
>linux mint letting users choose if broken or insecure system

>>>linux mint letting users choose if broken or insecure system
thats just wrong

Windows forcing updates is bad because it's a closed-source OS that gives the user no way to override that policy. It's right and proper for installing security updates to be the default configuration on any OS.

Linux, any Linux, will let you shoot yourself in the foot if you so choose. Which is okay. But the user should have to explicitly turn the safety off to do that. Normie users who are scared of twiddling the configuration knobs should have those knobs set to a secure configuration by the maintainers.

>irregardless

are you memeing?

Literally mint dev quote.

segfault.linuxmint.com/2013/11/answering-controversy-stability-vs-security-is-something-you-configure/

bump:

Linux Mint users who don't install updates are the ones choosing to shoot themselves in the foot

it gives you the option when installing. it's very easy to change the option in your graphical update manager if you want

I know because i installed Linux Mint MATE on my old laptop a week ago. A big, blatant window comes up and asks you what YOUR preference is on updates

look at my kernel, is this the new desktop thread?

If your distro is targeted at normies you shouldn't ask them that question. They don't know enough to make an intelligent choice. You should not ask them, install security updates be default, do proper testing of them to ensure that your users, who have limited ability to fix things on their own, don't get their shit broken, and then if the user wants to dig up information on how to stop or hold back certain updates, let them find that out and figure out how to do it on their own.

Just because debian is the only distro you've ever been able to install doesn't mean all the others suck. It just means even the losers get lucky some times.

There hasn't been a security fix in the linux kernel since 3.16.
Kernel headers is a different story. There's still patches though.

we'll have to just agree to disagree, I like Mint and it doesn't bother me that there are people using Mint who don't upgrade their kernel

I think we should draw a distinction between upgrading the kernel version and getting security patches. Debian uses a 3.16 kernel. That's pretty damn old. But 3.16 was an LTS release, and Debian and others backport security patches to that kernel. That's fine. What I assert isn't fine is using a kernel with no security support at all. Either pick an LTS kernel that gets patches, or stay current.

Wait wait. If Debian uses really old software versions, doesn't that mean it won't get prompt security updates? Like security updates would come in for newer software versions, but it wouldn't be easily backported to older versions that is actually be run, right?

the level 5 "dangerous" updates are always kernel updates

i get every security patch that ubuntu does, mint is essentially an Ubuntu reskin and 95 percent of the patches/updates that are installed on my pc are directly from ubuntu repos

I hate it because of out of date packages. but I don't have time to shit post

This.

The only good thing about Mint is Cinnamon.

That pretty much it. why using broken distro when you can have better one.

mental illness right there.

you're spreading FUD and disinfo.

kys.

what distro do you use? i switched to mint from kubuntu because it was broken as fuck

i would never consider any distro that wasn't ubuntu based because I want to be on the winning team and have massive community support

closing your eyes wount help you against the 12 year old kali skids who can hack your broken os, because you've chosen stability over security

different user, but I like xubuntu.

that image is all wrong

You cut down the road, not across the street

>closing your eyes wount help you against the 12 year old kali skids who can hack your broken os, because you've chosen stability over security
>wount
>wount
HAHAHHAHAHAHAH... fucking prove it retard. Show me how to hack Mint. Show me the fucking CVE that's still active.

Go ahead, I'll wait.

Dude... You can install any DE you want on any distro. They're just regular packages. Go install Ubuntu Minimal and then install Cinnamon.

>mint
>zsh
toppest of keks right here

i said non buggy, from what I've read on the internet cinnamon on ubuntu is buggy, i did do a little bit of research before choosing mint

>Dude... You can install any DE you want on any distro.
Distros are optimized for their default DE, installing other DEs could lead to instability.

Some distros do patch some stuff (OpenSUSE developers patches Firefox to use KDE's file picker instead of the ugly GTK+, for instance) but that's not the norm for most distros.

In most distros DEs are regular programs and work the same. All that "install X to use Y DE" is mostly bullshit. Especially in the case of Mint. It's literally Ubuntu LTS with less security patches.

>less security patches

if by "less" you mean all

>MUH CINNUMUHN
i bet you ubuntu net install with openbox and tint2 is better

more like closedbox

are you implying you're a closed homosexual

>late 2016
>not using KDE Plasma/Neon
kys faggots I thought Sup Forums was on the cutting edge

This

Just use Windows 10 you dumb fucks. You are online anyway, your ISP is keeping logs and your smartphones are linked to Google and Facebook botnets.

Linux is an illusion of security considering 90% of your other lifestyle is dependent on botnet products and services.

works great for me senpai, + XFCE is comfy as fuck

>and not very technically proficient people aren't running CIA servers with linux mint
Not that I have an opinion on most of this thread (and I'm a Mint user) but they're still able to get ransom-wared, become part of a botnet and send out spam emails and DDOS shit.

>what distro do you use? i switched to mint from kubuntu because it was broken as fuck
>i would never consider any distro that wasn't ubuntu based because I want to be on the winning team and have massive community support

Yeah, I made the same decision for the same reasons. I had more or less gotten Kubuntu 14.04 into a stable shape but KDE itself was still flakey as hell and things crashed a lot.

And Ubuntu forums and askubuntu are fantastic for support, almost everything you want or need to do have been done before.

Or just stop being a dumbass altogether and ditch those botnets, there's no use to them anyway.

>No use to them
Name me a better GPS for Android than Google Maps and I'll stop.

I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.

Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called "Linux", and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.

There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called "Linux" distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.

Linux is more fun though for everyday stuff

I have windows 10 for gaymen

>running newer kernel releases with security and stability updates is unsafe and dangerous

old news
the reason people still install it is distrowatch