I have the same general feelings, but then I recall my years as an OSS developer and being abused by people who contributed absolutely nothing to my projects. Not money, not code, not documentation, not even grammar corrections. I'm sure anyone who's been involved with reasonably popular OSS can relate.

I am not contributing to Ubuntu in any way, and that puts it into perspective.

(I still directly contribute to OSS and release OSS projects, but absolutely refuse to engage with the least bit of hostility. Any of that is an insta-block.)

Edit: Whoah the downvotes and comments. I'm not saying that Ubuntu is doing well here. I'm trying to point out that a a vast percentage of the complainers are not paying customers, and maybe if they did pay, Ubuntu would have more incentive and resources to work more quickly.

▲

yjftsjthsd-h 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

People are paying money for Ubuntu, though. I suppose if only the free versions were unpatched we could consider the ethics and merits of who is allowed to complain about what, but when the paying customers are also being left out in the cold I don't think your argument has much merit.

▲

runjake 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Sure, and those people have a right to complain.

But, imagine if the complaint vs paid ratio were more equal.

Right now, the ratio is massively skewed towards complainers vs paid. (>99.9% I'd guess)

	▲	pezgordo 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I guess yes on internet, enterprise customers just call their account managers rather than write a blog.

▲

basilikum 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Ubuntu is a for profit product by a commercial company, Canonical.

▲

runjake 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Most of it's user base are non-paying "free tier" customers.

	▲	sufficientsoup 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Their product is their product. It's not as if they should deprive their paying customers of a fix to spite the non-paying.
	▲	basilikum 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		How is that relevant?