this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2024
1360 points (96.8% liked)
linuxmemes
20742 readers
295 users here now
I use Arch btw
Sister communities:
- LemmyMemes: Memes
- LemmyShitpost: Anything and everything goes.
- RISA: Star Trek memes and shitposts
Community rules
- Follow the site-wide rules and code of conduct
- Be civil
- Post Linux-related content
- No recent reposts
Please report posts and comments that break these rules!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What are the benefits/features that this adds?
10 years security updates, plus security patches for community packages (instead of waiting on community patches). It's basically the corporate support plan provided for free for up to 5 machines per account.
I'm not sure I understand that part. Is Canonical implementing the patches instead of the open source project/package developers? I'm confused.
Exactly. In Debian, the community implements security patches. In Ubuntu, Canonical implements security patches for a part of the repo (main), the community implements them for the remainder (universe). This has been the standard since Ubuntu's inception. With Ubuntu Pro, Canonical implements security patches for the whole repo (main and universe).
So they're actively involved in the development of open source projects then?
Not necessarily. For all of these cases, Debian, Ubuntu, Pro, the community and Canonical are package maintainers. Implementing patches means means one of: grabbing a patch from upstream and applying it to a package (least work, no upstream contribution); deriving a patch for the package from the latest upstream source (more work, no upstream contribution); creating a fix that doesn't exist upstream and applying it to the package (most work, possible upstream contribution). I don't know what their internal process is for this last case but I imagine they publish fixes. I've definitely seen Canonical upstreaming bug fixes in GNOME, because that's where I have been paying attention to at some point in time. If you consider submitting such patches upstream as actively involved in project development, then they are actively involved. I probably wouldn't consider that active involvement just like I don't consider myself actively involved when I submit a bug fix to some project.
Ah ok I see. Thanks for the clarification.