Reading: NextBox: Why we Decided for and Against Ubuntu Core

Ah, “open” source… open as in “open for business.”

· · Web · 2 · 8 · 7

Happy to read your take.

IMHO, it's positive from app security point of view as it has unsupervised updates.

E.g. you can put your server on the net & take holidays.

Difficult is the question on how to verify the software origin, e.g. who packages the apps etc.

@aral I am kinda sad. Ubuntu Core was supposed to be the ultimate solution for all the limited capability embedded systems to get rid of the security and unupdateability nightmare which currently makes the iot industry making industrial waste instead of long-term usable products. There is nothing which gets outdated in a lot of smart things in 10 years, only software. Choosing snaps was a bad move and since then, the whole thing is going in a spectacularly wrong direction.

@aral Besides, concentrating only on big players as partners, just because energy providers and other public infrastructure companies currently need this is not only short sighted, but will open a whole new level of attack vectors on very important public infra which we will all suffer. These IT providers will essentially become part of the public infras but without the regulations or the guaranties which are currently placed on such sectors.

@gerazo @aral Well, Fedora IoT actually achieves a lot of what Ubuntu Core promises, but without the whole "You need a canoncial account" thing.

@w4tsn recently even published multiple articles about the work to tailor Fedora IoT to your needs:

So this might be useful and a "better" replacement for Ubuntu Core than "just plain debian" is.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Aral’s Mastodon

This is my personal Mastodon.