this post was submitted on 17 Jun 2024
659 points (96.1% liked)

linuxmemes

21244 readers
1418 users here now

Hint: :q!

Sister communities:

Community rules (click to expand)

1. Follow the site-wide rules

2. Be civil
  • Understand the difference between a joke and an insult.
  • Do not harrass or attack members of the community for any reason.
  • Leave remarks of "peasantry" to the PCMR community. If you dislike an OS/service/application, attack the thing you dislike, not the individuals who use it. Some people may not have a choice.
  • Bigotry will not be tolerated.
  • These rules are somewhat loosened when the subject is a public figure. Still, do not attack their person or incite harrassment.
    • 3. Post Linux-related content
  • Including Unix and BSD.
  • Non-Linux content is acceptable as long as it makes a reference to Linux. For example, the poorly made mockery of sudo in Windows.
  • No porn. Even if you watch it on a Linux machine.
    • 4. No recent reposts
  • Everybody uses Arch btw, can't quit Vim, and wants to interject for a moment. You can stop now.

    • Please report posts and comments that break these rules!

    founded 1 year ago
    MODERATORS
    poopsmith@lemmy.world
    zephyr@lemmy.world
    rtxn@lemmy.world
    659
    Don't make a mistake in choosing a distro (lemmy.world)
    submitted 4 months ago by Waffelson@lemmy.world to c/linuxmemes@lemmy.world
    162 comments fedilink hide all child comments
     
    you are viewing a single comment's thread
    view the rest of the comments
    [โ€“] MehBlah@lemmy.world 20 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    You mean a free Ubuntu pro account for personal use?

    [โ€“] lurch@sh.itjust.works 14 points 4 months ago

    b-but that requires signing up. too much effort ๐Ÿ˜…

    [โ€“] Waffelson@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    I think it looks like Microsoft is requesting a ms account to use/install Windows, I think it's weird to request registration for non-commercial users

    [โ€“] TootSweet@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (4 children)

    If you're not paying for the product, then you're the product.

    (I don't believe the above quote to be absolutely true, but I'm not sure what motivation Canonical could have to lock some features of the OS behind a free account except $$$.)

    [โ€“] joyjoy@lemm.ee 20 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    If you're not paying for the support, then you are the support.

    [โ€“] roguetrick@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago

    No, random Internet forum users and whoever is lurking in IRC/Matrix are the support. Kind of like that 2 by 4 in my basement is supporting the entirety of my house's main beam.

    [โ€“] TootSweet@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

    Yeah, but Canonical locks security patches behind payment or signup, not just support.

    [โ€“] joyjoy@lemm.ee 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

    you are the security patch. sudo apt uninstall

    [โ€“] AProfessional@lemmy.world 13 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

    Canonical already maintains security patches for paying customers so they aren't actually doing any extra work, but putting it behind a subscription gives them an option to start charging more for desktops, gives clear cost for server use, and maybe is marketing for "look at the premium work we do".

    [โ€“] TootSweet@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    Seems really dodgy to me making your business model holding security features hostage for either money or sign-ups, honestly.

    Kindof like charging people for vaccines against deadly diseases or something.

    But then again, my craw may be extra susceptible to sticking when it comes to such things.

    [โ€“] iopq@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

    How do you think research for vaccines is funded? Someone pays for vaccines for deadly diseases eventually

    [โ€“] TootSweet@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

    Preferably taxpayers. Not that that part of the analogy relates to Ubuntu.

    [โ€“] iopq@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

    In any case, the company who makes the vaccines doesn't pay it. Ubuntu could make the argument you get the security upgrades if the government wants to pay for them

    [โ€“] bluewing@lemm.ee 2 points 4 months ago

    From my look at it, Ubuntu is making it clear that they guarantee support for 10 years, rather than just the standard 4 of LTS releases. And they are also guaranteeing compliance for enterprise uses, saving the paperwork load and time. This could make Ubuntu Pro attractive for enterprises and the IT department. Everyone wants to limit the paperwork checks. Us plebes, can make do with the free standard 4 years of LTS support if that's what you want.

    I'm quite sure that any distro that offers enterprise solutions is doing similar things just for the money. RedHat does it for sure. But us plebes don't ever see it because we use Fedora instead.

    [โ€“] meekah@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

    Also making people familiar with your system makes it more likely that they'll want to use it at work, too

    [โ€“] MehBlah@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago

    It you are a business then you pay for the product.

    [โ€“] JackbyDev@programming.dev 4 points 4 months ago

    I'm not paying for Lemmy.