Canonical Developer Warns About Banking With Linux Mint

sfcrazy writes "Ubuntu developer Oliver Grawert does not prefer to do online banking with Linux Mint. In the official mailing list of the distribution, Ubuntu developers stated that the popular Ubuntu derivative is a vulnerable system and people shouldn't go for online banking on it. One of the Ubuntu developers, Oliver Grawert, originally pointed out that it is not necessary that security updates from Ubuntu get down to Linux Mint users since changes from X.Org, the kernel, Firefox, the boot-loader, and other core components are blocked from being automatically upgraded." Clement Lefebvre, the Linux Mint project founder, has since made a statement and confirmed that Oliver Grawert seems "more opinionated than knowledgeable" adding "the press blew what he said out of proportion."

Comments

like we needed more ammo

[X0563511]

Nice job Oliver - we really needed more ammunition in the Everyone vs Canonical battle.

Re:like we needed more ammo

[Eggplant62]

This is the stupidest thing I've ever read. Not only is it a blow to Mint, but to free software in general. I just got done crowing to friends that Linux isn't full of NSA backdoors, and then this pops up on newsfeed. Sheiss.

I suppose our developer doesn't understand that one can go with slightly more intelligent tools, like apt-get on the CLI, to get those packages upgraded? If so, he's no developer I'd give a shit about.

Re:like we needed more ammo

[exomondo]

I suppose our developer doesn't understand that one can go with slightly more intelligent tools, like apt-get on the CLI, to get those packages upgraded? If so, he's no developer I'd give a shit about.

He likely does, but that's not really the point is it? It's whether the average users know to do this.

Lots of this lately

[Anonymous Coward]

if you can't say how good your product is. tell everyone how shitty everyone elses product is.

This is why...

[sgage]

... I don't want anything more to do with Canonical, or Ubuntu, or Mint, or any of that lot. I'm sticking with Debian. I'm sure it has its problems and all, but at least the politics seem to remain mostly internal. These public pissing matches between distros just seem so counter-productive. But since I've been using Linux (1998), it seems to be a constant. Ego issues? I don't know. I don't particularly care. It's just so boring and off-putting.

Re:This is why...

[jones_supa]

I personally am seeing BSDs as an increasingly interesting choice.

Pot and kettle

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would you want to use a different distro where you don't know what could happen to your personal info;Here at Canonical we build the selling of your private info right into the menu!

Re:Missing context

[ttucker]

It is a pretty fucking good point too, that list of rules contains update exclusions that certainly would affect security.

Re:+1 Article Troll

[exomondo]

The problem is these are labeled Unsafe Packages and Dangerous Packages, now with those descriptions what user is going to say "yes I want those"? It states that these can affect stability, which is true, but leaves out that they could be critical security patches, which is also true.

The real beneficial fix to end users here would be to state the whole truth about these updates.

End of the world?

[dshk]

We are talking about a short, almost personal comment on the developer's mailing list of Ubuntu:

i personally wouldn't do online banking with it ;)

Compare this with the Slashdot article title:

Canonical Developer Warns About Banking With Linux Mint

Whether he is technically right, or not, I find it disgusting that such a side note becomes news on Slashdot.

By the way, the subject was another new distribution based on Ubuntu, similar to Mint, therefore the Ubuntu developer actually encouraged an Ubuntu derivative.