Pro tier is for Enterprise customers who need extra-long term support and are willing to pay for it. Canonical is meeting a market demand so they can remain competitive for use in those environments, which is good for everyone. It’s benign
Then please show me the button (and I mean button, not command-line exclusive settings or config file entries in /etc, and certainly not unofficial trickery like third party repositories that replace Ubuntu advantage packages with an empty decoy) that says "Thank you, I don't need Ubuntu Pro, please stop nagging me about it".
Depends a lot on what kind of user. I specified "non-technical" with a reason. I have, in the past, recommended Ubuntu to a small number of friends and family members. These are people who aren't particularly comfortable using computers in the best of times. They very much don't need the newest, best and most shiny versions of everything. They need to do billing, taxes, correspondance, email and various other tasks related to their small business, they need that to work reliably, and if at all possible, to work exactly the same way as it did the last five years. And if there is any pop-up they don't immediately understand (for example because it's in English instead of their native language, yes that still happens in Ubuntu quite a bit), they will call me on the phone.
I don't know if you've ever had to support non-technical end-users, but for some of them, even something as seemingly trivial as a menubar that has moved from the top to the side can be issue that needs explaining and training. For that kind of user, I really do want to postpone all updates beyond pure bug and security fixes for as long as reasonably possible. Five years sounds reasonable. Six months does not.
And constant non-optional pop-ups nagging you to upgrade to Ubuntu Pro during those five years. I'd actually be kinda okay with it if it were only after, an if just as a reminder that, hey, the LTS period is over, you need to switch to the next LTS release now.
They do, including those that are in Debian, but they also have an additional source of faster security updates developed in house, which they hold back from the free path in favor of the pro package.
Personally, I feel a bit torn about this. On the one hand, this should be, officially at least, purely an additional service on top of what's available in the baseline distro, and isn't taking anything away from that.
On the other hand, I strongly disagree with holding back security fixes from anyone, ever, for any reason. Also, the claim that it will never take away anything from the free base distro is at least a little bit suspect. I would not be surprised if the existence of the pro path were to gradually erode the quality and timelyness of the base security upgrade path over time. Also, Ubuntu is now very annoying about nagging you to upgrade to pro, and the way to disable that is fairly involved and very much non-official. The whole thing goes against what I expect from a F/OSS operating system. I don't quite understand why this topic hasn't been a much bigger issue in Linux circles yet. It certainly doesn't sit right with me...
There is more information in there that isn't actually true and only supposed to trick some old web servers into treating it a certain way than there is actually correct information,
It mentions three different browsers, only one of which is actually true, and three different rendering engines, none of which is actually what's used.
Wait, they managed to forge Let's Encrypt certificates? While it explains the attack on TLS (though technically not https as originally claimed, not that it makes much of a difference), that's even worse...
In your case, instead of getting a dedicated server and putting proxmox on it, I would check if it might not be cheaper to just get individual virtual servers directly.
Other than that, sure, I have been a customer for many years now, and I have always been a fan of Hetzner's price to quality ratio.
Those aren't files, though, they are just some sectors on your block device. Sure, if you mess with those, your ability to decrypt your disk goes out the window, but then, when was bypassing the filesystem and messing with bits on your disk directly ever safe?
It's possible he was using an encrypted key file instead of just a password for that extra strong security. In that case, of course, if you lose that file, kiss your data good bye.
That 'amp;' does not belong in there, it's probably either a copy-paste error or a Lemmy-error.
What this does (or would do it it were done correctly) is define a function called ":" (the colon symbol) which recursively calls itself twice, piping the output of one instance to the input of the other, then forks the resulting mess to the background. After defining that fork bomb of a function, it is immediately called once.
It's a very old trick that existed even on some of the ancient Unix systems that predated Linux. I think there's some way of defending against using cgroups, but I don't know how from the top of my head.
Then please show me the button (and I mean button, not command-line exclusive settings or config file entries in /etc, and certainly not unofficial trickery like third party repositories that replace Ubuntu advantage packages with an empty decoy) that says "Thank you, I don't need Ubuntu Pro, please stop nagging me about it".