The lack of an option to disable Ubuntu Pro package updates from appearing in the Software Updater tool in Ubuntu LTS releases has displeased some users.<\/strong><\/p>\n In the previous year, Canonical made modifications to the update-manager (or Software Updater) permitting it to show a selection of Ubuntu Pro package updates<\/a> available for user systems, irrespective of whether Ubuntu Pro is active or not (and if it isn’t, they cannot install the updates).<\/p>\n Earlier, only those users who had actively chosen Ubuntu Pro were able to view the corresponding package updates for their systems. <\/p>\n Currently, these updates are visible to all users.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n And the inability to opt-out of being asked to opt-in is proving an irritant\u2026<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Software Updater now shows greyed-out Ubuntu Pro updates<\/p>\n<\/p>\n In a bug report<\/a> opened against \u201cThis caused some users I support (like my Dad) to panic & call me\u2026\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n \u201cEvery time I invoke Software Updater I get a list of Ubuntu Pro security updates, and a message at the bottom that for those updates I need to enable Ubuntu Pro,\u201d they write.<\/p>\n \u201cI searched for Ubuntu Pro to find out what it is, and came to the conclusion that I do not want it; but there seems to nowhere be any means to permanently reject its installation.\u201d <\/p>\n They add that the behavior feels likes a \u201cmisguided marketing trick\u201d \u2014 ouch!<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \u201cGetting calls from customers that have no idea what\u2019s going on to their systems\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n While the absence of an “off switch” for these security updates is a primary concern for some, others responding to the bug report describe the negatives of presenting inexperienced users with a series of security updates they are unable to install right away:<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \u201cThis led to some of the users I assist (like my dad) becoming panicked and phoning me,\u201d one user writes<\/a>, adding that their father partly switched to Ubuntu following negative tales about companies coercing individuals into free subscriptions.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Another commenter notes<\/a>: \u201cI also receive calls from customers who are unaware of what is happening to their systems. They conduct updates and then can’t get rid of an update-manager window with inaccessible packages, unless they enable Ubuntu pro\u201d (sic).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Hmm.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Ubuntu Pro has been around for several years, and ESM around longer still. So, this is not the first time that Canonical\u2019s efforts to keep Ubuntu users informed about the benefits of signing up to get security updates have drawn complaints.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Notifications printed when running But let\u2019s remind ourselves of the context around Ubuntu Pro and LTS releases:<\/p>\n<\/p>\n While surfacing opt-in updates may grate I don\u2019t see them as \u201cads\u201d, more \u201cawareness\u201d.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Personally speaking, I do want to know if packages I install from the universe repo have security updates available for them \u2014 even if said updates are only available by signing up to Ubuntu Pro \u2014 which, disclaimer, I have!<\/p>\n<\/p>\n But while I don\u2019t mind them, I can sympathise with those annoyed at their inability to say \u201cdon\u2019t tell me about them, I don\u2019t care\u201d. Control over your system is a strong USP of Linux. Incessant badgering about updates is an appreciably Windows-y experience!<\/p>\n<\/p>\n But ignorance, however wilful, isn\u2019t always bliss.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Canonical\u2019s Oliver Grawert sums up the delicate balance<\/a> in a reply to the bug report:<\/p>\n<\/p>\n “Maintaining an additional 25k packages comes at a cost, what canonical does here is to make enterprises pay for this additional work to be able to then provide it for free to the community,”<\/em> he writes.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Ubuntu Pro is free for home users, but you have to sign up \u2013 and there\u2019s a reason why<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n “To make sure such enterprises do not grab it for free there needs to be a control mechanism in place which is why you need to register to get them.”<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n Which is fair.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n As mentioned, Ubuntu Pro is free for home users on up to 5 computers. Signing up only requires a valid e-mail address. No payment information, no verifiable2<\/a><\/sup> personal info, etc \u2014 more captcha than gotcha!<\/p>\n \u201cAs of hiding info about open security holes on your system, would you prefer to rather not know that your wordpress install from universe is vulnerable in a way a script kiddie can take over your blog site and show [rude] pics to the world instead of getting the list of available fixes during updates?\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n I fear that one personally, Oliver \ud83d\ude05. <\/p>\n If these are \u201cnags\u201d, they\u2019re well meaning \u2014 we are talking security here<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n \u201cWhile ubuntus base system is indeed very secure, hiding info about open security holes in additional packages and available fixes for these is surely not a good idea,\u201d<\/em> he concludes.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n And I agree.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n As annoying as repeated visual \u201cnags\u201d \u2014 a quote from the bug report before anyone flies at me for using the term \u2014 we are talking about security here, not something trivial like \u201cget more wallpapers\u201d.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n If surfacing \u201chere are extra security fixes you should know about\u201d in (arguably the most appropriate place for it) Software Update<\/em> is seen a nag, it\u2019s at least a well-meaning one.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n A bit like a parent telling you to do up your laces so you don\u2019t trip. The onus is on you to do something about it, but they can\u2019t say they didn\u2019t warn you\u2026<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Have you opted-in to Ubuntu Pro on your LTS system? And if you haven\u2019t, what stops you from doing so? Does seeing Pro-only update irk you? Share your thoughts \u2014 keep \u2019em civil \u2014 below.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n Thanks lotuspsychje<\/em><\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The lack of an option to disable Ubuntu Pro package updates from appearing in the Software Updater tool in Ubuntu LTS releases has displeased some users. In the previous year, Canonical made modifications to the update-manager (or Software Updater) permitting it to show a selection of Ubuntu Pro package updates available for user systems, irrespective […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":364,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4,203],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-363","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news","category-ubuntu-pro"],"yoast_head":"\nUbuntu Pro \u201cMisguided Marketing Trick\u201d<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n
update-manager<\/code> on Launchpad the frustration some feel at not being able to outright disable Ubuntu Pro updates from showing in the Software Updater <\/em>tool is laid bare.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\n
Ubuntu Pro: Ad, or Awareness?<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n
apt<\/code> commands led to consternation<\/a> about \u201cads\u201d, and some Ubuntu Server users were unenthused by plugs for Canonical services<\/a> in the pre-configured motd-new<\/code> element.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\n
It\u2019s better to know than not, innit<\/h3>\n<\/p>\n
\n
\n
\n