Linux Mint Finds Many Of Its Users Are Running Behind On Security Updates

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Linux Mint Finds Many Of Its Users Are Running Behind On Security Updates

The issue of having a beginner/easy-to-use focused desktop Linux distribution but not installing new security updates by default without user intervention is that for many users they fall behind in applying often important security fixes...

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Linux-Mint-Security-EOL

[skeevy420]

I am totally shocked that casuals running CasualOS don't stay up to date.

[skeevy420]

Snark aside, I'm curious if there's a psychological reason behind people not updating. Like, is it a case of "if it ain't broke don't fix it" or if past update issues (any OS) makes people reluctant to update regardless of the situation.

[In_Mint_Condition]

Speaks volumes for an OS when it can seemingly continue running seemlessly for many even when past it's EOL.
Besides I'd imagine few of these exploits are exposed in actual cases, more vulnerabilities that could be exposed in theory.

[birdie]

Snark aside, I'm curious if there's a psychological reason behind people not updating. Like, is it a case of "if it ain't broke don't fix it" or if past update issues (any OS) makes people reluctant to update regardless of the situation.

The reason is simple: users don't trust Linux updates and it's not without a reason (new Linux packages often come with drastic UI changes, regressions and new bugs). The only distro with which I've had zero regressions while updating is RHEL/CentOS.

Speaks volumes for an OS when it can seemingly continue running seemlessly for many even when past it's EOL.
Besides I'd imagine few of these exploits are exposed in actual cases, more vulnerabilities that could be exposed in theory.

Windows NT 4.0 if properly firewalled/isolated still runs seamlessly and allows to use the Internet. Why would any modern OS suddenly break if it's past EOL? I see zero reasons for that. Granted old OSes lack support for modern encryption protocols, i.e. TLS 1.2/1.3 but other than that there's nothing in them which is deteorating with time.

[Ipkh]

This is nothing special. Most users aren't clicking update every week and going through a reboot. If it ain't broke don't fix it. And security updates don't count in most users minds as fixing something broken.
And they certainly are volunteering to go through a full upgrade and risk breaking some application thats no longer available or hasn't moved off a deprecated library.
I'd imagine every other OS has similar stats.

[gggeek]

Not talking specifically about the Mint crew, but a lot of oss developers seem surprised to discover that, when they hit popularity, they suddenly have to deal with most of the problems that afflict the established (proprietary/evil/so-yesterday/etc...) players.

Users not wanting to upgrade.
Users complaining that the app is not cool and sleek and modern enough.
Users ranting that the GUI has been changed without their consent.
Users asking for more features.
Users asking for speed.
Users asking for compatibility with obscure, obsolete hardware.
Users asking for bloat reduction.
Users asking for more documentation.
Users complaining that the documentation is hard to find.
Users complaining that the doc is too detailed and verbose, and skipping it.
Having to maintain backwards compatibility with horrible design choices made when starting.

Maybe the best way to avoid all of these issues is to remain tucked away in a little, obscure niche :-D

Either that, or deploy a reality distortion field that turns all users in grateful zombies...

Damned if you do, damned if you don't!

[Weasel]

Snark aside, I'm curious if there's a psychological reason behind people not updating. Like, is it a case of "if it ain't broke don't fix it" or if past update issues (any OS) makes people reluctant to update regardless of the situation.

When people are told that updates are safe and should be applied immediately and then they do so, but they notice drastic changes in things they did, or the PC doesn't boot at all (happened to me on a kernel security update, thankfully I'm not like casual users so reverting it was easy), they stop trusting the morons who put out this kind of bullshit, and their statements.

Another thing: Linux Mint 17 doesn't use systemd. I'm sure a significant part of the crowd who still uses it is due to that. It's not about systemd hatred necessarily, but rather that it's a change that makes you lose time especially if you had scripts around it. Fuck changes. And ofc they had to change the syntax!

[szymon_g]

is anyone still surprised why MS forces updates on the home version of it's OS?

[Tuxee]

When people are told that updates are safe and should be applied immediately and then they do so, but they notice drastic changes in things they did, or the PC doesn't boot at all (happened to me on a kernel security update, thankfully I'm not like casual users so reverting it was easy), they stop trusting the morons who put out this kind of bullshit, and their statements.

Another thing: Linux Mint 17 doesn't use systemd. I'm sure a significant part of the crowd who still uses it is due to that. It's not about systemd hatred necessarily, but rather that it's a change that makes you lose time especially if you had scripts around it. Fuck changes. And ofc they had to change the syntax!

U serious? Not really, I assume. As if the typical Mint user gives a shit about an init system...