Linux Mint falsely accused of being “insecure”

If it's true, it's almost Microsoft worthy FUD. Sure they closed "bug 1" at Canonical: it's not they've beaten Microsoft, they're becoming it! ;-)

@theBeez,

You've hit that right on the nail! Let's see what else CanUbecomical has in common with "the same old same old" Macro$uck$ besides resortin to lowly FUD:

# A filthy rich $huttleworth2much who has grandiose "computing visions"; M$'s filthy-rich visionary is of course Bill Gates of the past

# A tireless, forceful advocate for his product in the form of Jono Bacon and similar high-up --and sometimes ARROGANT(!) -- mucky-mukts; M$'s one-of-the-same in the past was Steve "Bully" Ballmer infamously reknown for breaking chairs and doin the Developers Developers dance

# Consistent but questionable legal tactics. CanUbecomical's most recent was that cease-and-desist "misunderstanding" against fixbuntu's Micah F Lee ; among others, M$'s was of course its patent threats, the BSA prosecuation threats, and the bothersome End User License Agreements for its Win$ucks products.

# A REALLY vocal Baboontu fanboi base and the parent ship'$ keen desire to become a monopoly

# (fill in the blank)

# (fill in the blank)

I can even just hear the high-up Borglike mucky-mukts saying to F/OSS devs of all sorts just like within M$'s Interoperate initiative: "We are Canonical. Completely open up your repositories to us and surrender your F/OSS sourcecode. We will add your unique technological contributions to our own. Your code developers will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile"

my own many 2c

I find it funny that a canonical employee would complain about Mint security when they choose to deliberately maintain old and known defective versions of libraries and packages related to security fixes in Ubuntu itself, and even when long notified about such packages, and afer long fixed in Debian. Apparently favoritism and politics are far more important as to what things get chosen, or updated for fixes from Debian, than the needs of their actual end users.

@dyfet: I don't know for sure, but I suspect an exodus of developer talent from the Ubuntu camp. That would certainly be an explanation for slow processing of security/packaging updates.