Originally published at: http://www.howtogeek.com/176495/ubuntu-developers-say-linux-mint-is-insecure-are-they-right/
Linux Mint is insecure, according to a Canonical-employed Ubuntu developer who says he wouldn’t do his online banking on a Linux Mint PC. The developer alleges that Linux Mint “hacks out” important updates. Is this a real problem or just fear-mongering?
I believe you meant it is"unsecure". I doubt It has achieved self awareness to feel insecure about itself.
Valuable article, Chris - thanks ! Unfortunate that a Canonical employee would stoop to spreading this type of FUD....
That's awfully subjective.
I would have to believe that even with a vulnerability or two, any Linux distro is overwhelmingly more secure than even the tightest Windoze install. Mint (and its derivatives) may be some slight degree less secure than a full blown Ubuntu install, but still...
I said "what the heck" and just enabled the level 4 and 5 updates.
Rule #1 of correcting someone online: make darn sure you are right.
A few seconds of googling for the definition of "insecure" yields
2. Inadequately guarded or protected; unsafe
(and similar secondary definitions in other dictionaries). In fact, the definition one online dictionary gives for "unsecure" is "insecure."
Chris, great article.
Body is invalid; try to be a little more descriptive
Linux Mint is not insecure it provides a great updater system that you can have even more control over.
Ubuntu doesn't give you control over what types of updates are installed...you either get them or you don't.
I am a HUGE fan of the Linux Mint Updater because it provides me with the ability to give family and friends a Linux based system that I can safely show them how to do updates because the stuff that could break the system can be turned off and wont be presented them to install.
Then I can activate those updates when I am there to fix it if it breaks something rather than them updating and then freaking out because something broke. I don't have to worry about that happening.
With Ubuntu my Mom has over 100 updates to do because she is too afraid to run them as they could break her system but more importantly when she first tried to run them the system failed and gave her an error message that she didnt understand of course. So the updates just kept piling on and now the system simply can't update due to the amount and the conflictions they introduce.
Ubuntu's update method has its own flaws.
I find this interesting.
Just a few weeks ago decided to, as a Saturday project, install Linux on an Acer One netbook. I really spent all day and into the evening on it. I did try 3 or 4 different versions of the software and the only one that was easy to work, install wifi and an HP printer (wireless) was the Mint version. I do consider myself computer literate but all the other versions were very difficult to use because everything was command line from a terminal. It seemed that the online help required previous Linus experience.
Sounds like sour grapes to me, but what do I know...
Honestly, it sounds to me like some of the folks over at Canonical are simply upset about the fact that Mint is more popular than Ubuntu and has been for quite some time. There really is no perfect way to handle updates and every system has it's trade-offs. Personally, I like the way it's handled in Bodhi (an Ubuntu derivative). There is no updater (that I'm aware of) and you just choose for yourself which packages to update, if and when needed.
I've had Ubuntu break more than once after updating.
This topic was automatically closed after 10 days. New replies are no longer allowed.