My reply to you was emotional, but I disagree with rest of your claims. Let me explain that one last time:
/u/cbmuser tried to explain me that
It's not enabled by default which renders the whole concept of security updates pointless.
Yes, for God's sake, you can enable all that stuff to get the updates. But the arguments I made on lwn.net still remain valid.
As if I said his arguments were wrong or I tried to say everything is okay.
/u/cbmuser gracefully ignored important part of my comment which was:
Sadly, the rest of their security-related practices is indeed questionable and I don't agree that some updates are disabled with their policy of disabling some updates by default.
rendering his response pointless and out of topic. Do you see the nonsense now? I know that they failed in those cases (updates disabled by default, etc), it's just statement that
Users must run apt-get dist-upgrade in a terminal in order to receive updates (...)
is simply false. That's all about it. Asking /u/cbmuser to read my comment again as a whole (what was supposed to lead him to see that I'm not trying to blindly defend Mint) resulted with some more hurr durr, oh well.
Then you came in with pointing out that
This seems a bit ironic, I would say you actually cited the original post out of context, by jumping on the command line bit, when that is not at all the principal issue.
Again suggesting that you didn't read the
Sadly, the rest of their security-related practices is indeed questionable and I don't agree that some updates are disabled with their policy of disabling some updates by default.
part, or just ignored it. I know it was not the principal issue at all, that's why I wrote what I wrote. The sentence I originally cited is false regardless of rest of the article. There was no context which could change that, that's why there was no reason to extend citation. The same with your comment. Even if I cited
The difference between knowing to switch on some off-by-default advanced setting and knowing to type in an update command, is not significant.
as well, tt wouldn't change the accusation of me citing without important context, and thus distorting truth and being hypocritical. I wasn't talking about differences between those options. I was talking about the fact, that dist-upgrade is not the only way to update Mint, especially that dist-upgrade is some "different kind of beast" to handle whole release upgrades on Debian stable and derivatives or to upgrade Sid.
Both of you overinterpreted my first comment by ignoring parts of it not matching your current mindset, ignored my second comment pointing that fact, and now you just try to twist everything round (and again citing only part of my comment! - without other important bits). Nice try, but still 1/10, or maybe it's just language issue (English is my second language). I hope you wouldn't mind if I ended this conversation now. Bye.