440
Ubuntu's trust problem in 4 concrete issues - verified facts, no FUD
(media.piefed.social)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 16 Mar 2026
440 points (91.2% liked)
Linux
12874 readers
482 users here now
A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system (except the memes!)
Also, check out:
Original icon base courtesy of lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Without Ubuntu Pro subscription the entire Universe repository does not receive any security updates by Canonical:
https://canonical.com/blog/ubuntu-pro-enhanced-security-and-manageability-for-linux-desktop
You should consider switching to an entirely independent distribution that does not lock security updates behind a paywall, perhaps something based directly on Debian or Fedora.
Update: Correction. While you do get five years of security updates for Universe on an Ubuntu LTS, those are updates done by the ubuntu community, not canonical. To get Universe security updates from Canonical, you do have to sign up to Ubuntu pro, which can be done without any payment, but as I describe in my original comment, does require creating an account.
While Canonical deserves the criticisms leveled by op (that I agree with), it's also incorrect to say that they lock security updated behind a paywall.
Anyone that does use Ubuntu gets security updated until they stop supporting that particular release version, which iirc is for six years (I may be wrong, thus is from memory).
If you want extended security updates for a specific version of the os, you can elect to sign up to Ubuntu pro without paying any money. You do have to make an account, and if you so choose you can populate the account info with garbage info and a disposable email, and you'll get extended security updates for that release version.
I quoted the relevant part and yet you still don't understand that Universe is explicitly not covered by security support by Canonical without Ubuntu Pro.
Ah. Both misunderstood what you were saying and was uninformed. My apologies. Editing my original comment to reflect that.
The updates available through Ubuntu Pro wouldn’t have normally been available prior to Pro. It’s an added service, not something that was previously available that is now locked behind a paywall. There are plenty of reasons to not like Canonical but this isn’t one.
What's a better alternative that uses apt and KDE and has relatively up-to-date packages (other than Debian testing)?
May I ask why you seem to be married to the use of
apt?~~Just couldn't pass up on the opportunity to insert this banger.~~
Isn't apt still better at resolving the dependency tree than other managers? (Idk if it is, but vaguely heard so.)
IIRC, historically, it was (one of) the first to do so. It took a significant time for (most^[Slackware, famously, continues to not have a dependency resolver. Though, they got their reasons.]) others to catch up.
Maybe. I honestly don't know either.
Linux mint Debian Edition, and just install KDE yourself ig, otherwise MX linux KDE
It's not KDE, but I think Linux Mint Cinnamon is a no-brainer for somebody who really just wants to use ubuntu.
However, as a long time Mint fan I recently had reason to switch to Debian 13 w/ KDE Plasma and it is pretty great.
Debian Sid!
What's wrong with Debian?
I already know about it, so there's no need to tell me.
Fair enough.
There's also Pop and Mint, though I don't know if their update model differs from Ubuntu at all.
But if you're already familiar with Debian, why not use it? It's widely recommended for a reason, it's hard to beat.
Its objective superiority puts others off.
Fedora offers apt. AFAIK not by default, so it has to be installed via dnf first but then it's available.
It's been like that for years.
https://www.google.com/search?q=why+shouldn%27t+you+use+apt+on+fedora&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari&safe=active
It's a really bad idea to have two package managers overlap (this is also why more "cross-system" package managers like nix and brew are okay: they consciously install to separate paths to avoid overlapping)
Fedora does not offer APT repositories, so if you somehow don't overlap and pretty much exclusively use APT, you're pretty much just converting your distro to Debian (or whatever's providing your repos). In the forums we call this a Frankenstein; support is seldom given for raising the dead.
Is your answer whatever Gemini happens to hallucinate on a given day?
https://www.google.com/search?q=why+shouldn%27t+you+use+apt+on+fedora+-ai
do yourself a favor and just block the overview: https://www.reddit.com/r/uBlockOrigin/comments/1crc47m/is_it_possible_to_use_ublock_to_remove_googles/
Ubuntu Pro is free for personal use on up to five machines.
Also note that Universe is the community-maintained repository, sort of like the AUR but the community also reviews package creations. The Main repository is maintained by the Ubuntu Project and has always had free security updates.
Saying this is like screaming "I don't know anything about Ubuntu except that I hate it!!!!"
I posted a screenshot from Ubuntu's own blog. So they hate themselves and lie to the world?
It's maintained by my hardware OEM (Tuxedo) and I'm not even sure it has Universe - most things are flatpaks.
Novel got Suse pretty stable now too. I'm still a Fedora fan but it's an option.