So it has auto updates enabled? Windows, macOS and a ton of other Linux distros do that as well.
I think it’s moreso that Ubuntu is (one of the) most used desktop Linux OSes, so a lot of corporations and individuals who like to play safe just go with that
Windows, macOS and a ton of other Linux distros do that as well.
First of all, windows and macOS are not for free. They cost extra money, sometimes hidden in the PC cost when pre-installed. When they do a major update, like Win10 to 11, you are at their mercy, if your license can be used to upgrade. Often it can, but sometimes your PC is not “Windows 11 ready” or so and then you get updates for your old system for a few more years until they drop you like a hot potato and throw you to the malware wolves.
Additionally, in Windows the automatic updates are just for the OS itself and some apps from its store. A few apps like Chrome and FF install their own extra update service on top. A lot of other programs check for updates individually or some not at all and often you have to download and run their installer for every update. Idk how it is in macOS tho. Haven’t used it in years.
Yes, a ton of other Linux distros also have background unattended-upgrade or similar. However, the people who choose Ubuntu over those are usually looking for a quick solution that almost always just installs without problems. They usyally don’t have time or patience for any complications, however small. So they choose the fire-and-forget Linux and additionally have greater chances to find a fix or help in the super rare case it doesn’t work, because the bigger user base increases the likelyhood someone else is familiar or has infos regarding that exotic issue.
macOS is mostly the same as Windows in terms of updating Applications.
The App Store is more prevalent than Microsoft Store, but you can still download an executable for most programs from the browser. Installing is a bit different since you drop the file into the app folder instead of actually having an installation executable.
Then there is homebrew, which is an unofficial package manager, which I am using for everything, if available (which is almost all the time)
From my perspective, if used for work, automatic security updates should be mandatory. Linux is damn impressive with live patch. With thousands or even tens of thousands of endpoints, it’s negligent to not patch.
Features? Don’t care. But security updates are essential in a large organisation.
The worst part of the Linux fan base is the users who hate forced updates, and also don’t believe in AV. Ok on your home network that’s not very risky compared to a corp network with a million student and staff personal information often with byo devices only a network segment away and APT groups targeting you because they know your reputation is worth something to ransom.
Most organizations care about maintaining document compatibility, especially formatting, and that usually means Office365. Microsoft is notorious for publishing a standard and then ignoring their own standard, making it exceedingly difficult to use other office suites.
I’ve heard OnlyOffice does the best at maintaining compatibility.
Sorry to clarify: updates come as security or as feature updates. If I’ve already got a standard operating environment (SOE) with all the features I/staff need to do work, I don’t need new features.
I then have to watch cves with my cve trackers to know when software updates are needed and all devices with those software get updated and the SOE is updated.
I can go on a rant about how bad the Linux has recently made my life as someone’s policy is that any Linux bug might be a security vulnerability and therefore I now have infinite noise in my cve feed, which in turn is making decisions on how to mitigate security issues hard, but that is beyond this discussion.
So in short I’m only talking about when you update, updating only security fixes, not the software and features. Live patching security vulnerabilities is pretty much free low effort, low impact, and in my personal opinion, absolutely critical. But software features patching can be disruptive, leaves little to be gained, and really only should be driven for a request to need that feature at which point it would also include an update to the SOE.
They probably have been using it for years, and for the last more then a decade I’ve been using Ubuntu as my main Linux distribution since I have work to do and I’ll get to doing work faster in ubuntu than any other distribution.
Why did I start with Ubuntu? 10+ years ago Ubuntu was lightyears ahead for community support for issues. Again, I had work to do, I wasn’t hobbyist playing “fuck windows”.
In fact look at things like ROS where you can get going with “apt install ros-noetic-desktop” and now you can build your robotics stuff instantly. Every dependency to start and all the other tooling is there too. Sure a bunch of people would now say “use nix” but my autonomous robotics project doesn’t care I am trying to get lidar, camera, motors, and SLAM algorithms to work. I don’t want to care or think about compiling ROS for some arch distribution.
I won’t say I don’t dabble with other distributions but if I’ve got work to do, I’m going to use the tools I already know better than the back of my hand. And at the time, when selecting these tools, Ubuntu had it answered and is stable enough to have been unchanging for basically a decade.
Oh and if I needed to, I could pay and get support so the CEO can hear that risk is gone too (despite almost every other vendor we pay never actually resolving a issue before we find and fix it… Though I do like also being able to say “we have raised a ticket with vendor x and am waiting on a reply”).
I think your first point is the main reason Ubuntu has its popularity to thank for; 10-15 years ago it was (one of) the best desktop Linux OSes, people used to its workflow will continue using it as there’s no imminent reason to switch to whatever new thing just came out
Inertia is just a sign of maturity. It’s fine. Nothing wrong with it. Especially when the new stuff is happening along side it. In 10 years there may be people asking why you’re using arch or nix, when whatever new thing is superior. But it’ll just be proof that nix can run in production for 10+ years.
It was one of the first polished desktop Linux systems, even though it’s enshittified recently it holds its popularity due to its long-standing status as “THE Linux desktop”
So it has auto updates enabled? Windows, macOS and a ton of other Linux distros do that as well.
I think it’s moreso that Ubuntu is (one of the) most used desktop Linux OSes, so a lot of corporations and individuals who like to play safe just go with that
First of all, windows and macOS are not for free. They cost extra money, sometimes hidden in the PC cost when pre-installed. When they do a major update, like Win10 to 11, you are at their mercy, if your license can be used to upgrade. Often it can, but sometimes your PC is not “Windows 11 ready” or so and then you get updates for your old system for a few more years until they drop you like a hot potato and throw you to the malware wolves.
Additionally, in Windows the automatic updates are just for the OS itself and some apps from its store. A few apps like Chrome and FF install their own extra update service on top. A lot of other programs check for updates individually or some not at all and often you have to download and run their installer for every update. Idk how it is in macOS tho. Haven’t used it in years.
Yes, a ton of other Linux distros also have background unattended-upgrade or similar. However, the people who choose Ubuntu over those are usually looking for a quick solution that almost always just installs without problems. They usyally don’t have time or patience for any complications, however small. So they choose the fire-and-forget Linux and additionally have greater chances to find a fix or help in the super rare case it doesn’t work, because the bigger user base increases the likelyhood someone else is familiar or has infos regarding that exotic issue.
macOS is mostly the same as Windows in terms of updating Applications.
The App Store is more prevalent than Microsoft Store, but you can still download an executable for most programs from the browser. Installing is a bit different since you drop the file into the app folder instead of actually having an installation executable.
Then there is homebrew, which is an unofficial package manager, which I am using for everything, if available (which is almost all the time)
From my perspective, if used for work, automatic security updates should be mandatory. Linux is damn impressive with live patch. With thousands or even tens of thousands of endpoints, it’s negligent to not patch.
Features? Don’t care. But security updates are essential in a large organisation.
The worst part of the Linux fan base is the users who hate forced updates, and also don’t believe in AV. Ok on your home network that’s not very risky compared to a corp network with a million student and staff personal information often with byo devices only a network segment away and APT groups targeting you because they know your reputation is worth something to ransom.
Most organizations care about maintaining document compatibility, especially formatting, and that usually means Office365. Microsoft is notorious for publishing a standard and then ignoring their own standard, making it exceedingly difficult to use other office suites.
I’ve heard OnlyOffice does the best at maintaining compatibility.
Sorry to clarify: updates come as security or as feature updates. If I’ve already got a standard operating environment (SOE) with all the features I/staff need to do work, I don’t need new features.
I then have to watch cves with my cve trackers to know when software updates are needed and all devices with those software get updated and the SOE is updated.
I can go on a rant about how bad the Linux has recently made my life as someone’s policy is that any Linux bug might be a security vulnerability and therefore I now have infinite noise in my cve feed, which in turn is making decisions on how to mitigate security issues hard, but that is beyond this discussion.
So in short I’m only talking about when you update, updating only security fixes, not the software and features. Live patching security vulnerabilities is pretty much free low effort, low impact, and in my personal opinion, absolutely critical. But software features patching can be disruptive, leaves little to be gained, and really only should be driven for a request to need that feature at which point it would also include an update to the SOE.
I agree, this doesn’t explain why Ubuntu would be any better than other OSes that also auto update by default…
They probably have been using it for years, and for the last more then a decade I’ve been using Ubuntu as my main Linux distribution since I have work to do and I’ll get to doing work faster in ubuntu than any other distribution.
Why did I start with Ubuntu? 10+ years ago Ubuntu was lightyears ahead for community support for issues. Again, I had work to do, I wasn’t hobbyist playing “fuck windows”.
In fact look at things like ROS where you can get going with “apt install ros-noetic-desktop” and now you can build your robotics stuff instantly. Every dependency to start and all the other tooling is there too. Sure a bunch of people would now say “use nix” but my autonomous robotics project doesn’t care I am trying to get lidar, camera, motors, and SLAM algorithms to work. I don’t want to care or think about compiling ROS for some arch distribution.
I won’t say I don’t dabble with other distributions but if I’ve got work to do, I’m going to use the tools I already know better than the back of my hand. And at the time, when selecting these tools, Ubuntu had it answered and is stable enough to have been unchanging for basically a decade.
Oh and if I needed to, I could pay and get support so the CEO can hear that risk is gone too (despite almost every other vendor we pay never actually resolving a issue before we find and fix it… Though I do like also being able to say “we have raised a ticket with vendor x and am waiting on a reply”).
I think your first point is the main reason Ubuntu has its popularity to thank for; 10-15 years ago it was (one of) the best desktop Linux OSes, people used to its workflow will continue using it as there’s no imminent reason to switch to whatever new thing just came out
Inertia is just a sign of maturity. It’s fine. Nothing wrong with it. Especially when the new stuff is happening along side it. In 10 years there may be people asking why you’re using arch or nix, when whatever new thing is superior. But it’ll just be proof that nix can run in production for 10+ years.
You think it is the most used because it is the most used? There must be a reason for that!
It was one of the first polished desktop Linux systems, even though it’s enshittified recently it holds its popularity due to its long-standing status as “THE Linux desktop”