Shared publicly  - 
Ok, cut the bullshit, please. Did you do any research on this yourself?

First of all, it does not withhold browser updates. Firefox is a level 2 update in Linux Mint, so that is, for starters, what we call FUD.

Second, the whole hysteria is about a system that prevents the system from breaking with updates, by withholding updates that may potentially break the system. Have a look at this dialog;

Does this look like a hard-coded problem to you, or rather something that can be enabled or disabled as the user pleases?

Have a look at /usr/lib/linuxmint/mintUpdate/rules.
*linux-|*|5||May damage your system. In particular, if you have used envy to install nVidia or ATI proprietary drivers, do not install unless you understand how those drivers work.
linux|*|5||May damage your system. In particular, if you have used envy to install nVidia or ATI proprietary drivers, do not install unless you understand how those drivers work.

Kernel upgrades often break Xorg, as many long-time Linux/Ubuntu users may know. Security? Sure. But I still think the average user would rather have their desktop not breaking. When security gets in the way, it's implemented wrongly.
As the Xorg, it's the same story when using non-open source drivers. And unfortunately, most users still need those closed source drivers to have their system functioning properly.
If you're so concerned about security, you shouldn't use Xorg at all, in fact, since it can't distinguish input sent to separate applications, and thus a seemingly-innocent application can easily catch your bank account details which you input into Firefox.

Then, the boot loader... Are we Microsoft, now? Since when does the boot loader have so much influence on the security of a (desktop) system? Or is Ubuntu working on an own implementation of secure boot?

#Ubuntu   #linuxmint   #CanonicalHasWayTooMuchFunAttemptingToDrillOtherProjectsIntoTheGround  
OMG! Ubuntu!'s profile photoRobin Jacobs's profile photoOliver Grawert (ogra)'s profile photoRadoslav Dejanović's profile photo
Funny how you use our post to call out the issue with what Oliver has said and not that of the site you write for ;) 
+OMG! Ubuntu! "That site I write for" -- lol. I occasionally write some articles, as in 5 in the last year or so.
I must be missing the "funny" part, though.
What I do think is funny is that a big news site like omgubuntu takes it upon themselves to personally attack their readers... nice going in that other comment thread. Just be happy you're probably going to have regained all the readers you're losing with this one by next week.
Only something like 0.5% of our readers comment, and only a smidgen over 1% read 'em. So if I've lost anyone from commenting then their impact won't be felt (not to sound cold, but facts is facts).

"We" also haven't attacked our readers, I pointed out that you, in particular, seem to like to have a bit of a whine at me/the sites. And that's understandable; most people only comment on articles when they disagree etc. But of the "visible" people whom I know, seeing you do it stays in my head more than someone whom I don't know. 
+OMG! Ubuntu! I was more referring to the article. Not so much to the comments.

"A bit of a whine at me/the sites" -- As in me pointing out when something on the site is broken? Ok, I won't do that anymore from now on, then. Thought I was actually helping you there, but apparently you don't like "bug reports".
I leave positive comments when something good's being covered (new applications and games for Linux, etc.). But those comments are usually a lot shorter, because there's less to say about it, and thus less visible, perhaps.
I leave negative comments when some or most of the information in an article is incorrect. Whether a positively- or negatively-tinted article. I do my research, and if I find something is wrong with it, I try to point it out to the author and readers. A great example is this article. There is some truth behind the article, but it's been blown-up so much (not by you, but by the guy who originally sent the e-mail) that the actual facts have become just a minor portion of the contents of this particular article.

"Visible people whom I know" -- Not sure what you mean by "visible". As to "knowing" me... meh. Not even going to justify that claim with a proper response.

"stays in my head longer" -- lol. Why do my comments stay in your head longer? Not sure why that would be :p
As for "facts is facts", I come to believe that +OMG! Ubuntu! is not a professional journalist, or that a person(s) received poor training in journalism, and probably none in PR. 

While the numbers might be true (my experience is that far more than 1% of readers read comments) and the logic behind it might be a hard fact, the presentation is surely lacking in social awareness. It might do more damage than the original article itself. 

As for the claims in the original article, I agree with +Robin Jacobs - there's a pinch of truth in general sense of system security and potential problems with Mint distribution, but the "I wouldn't use it for Internet banking" part is just a plain, if not unintented, FUD. 
Add a comment...