Linux Mint does not adhere to the principles of software freedom and it does not publish security advisories.
I am, however, unsure why the author claims that mint does not adhere to the “principles of software freedom”. Maybe because,
Mint’s reputation for ease of use has been further enhanced by the inclusion of proprietary and patent-encumbered multimedia codecs that are often absent from larger distributions due to potential legal threats.
But if that is the reason, then they should label most distros the same way. To give one example, Debian has bundled non-free firmware since Bookworm. It feels very odd for them to single out Mint like this, if that is in fact the reason.
Either way, they need to clearly spell out why they accuse Mint of this
Yes, especially when there is not a word of criticism about Ubuntu that had lots of controversies in the past. With Snap as the most recent and Amazon “integration” as the first I was aware of. That makes it sound more like a personal thing than objective assessment.
It’s appears to be from https://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=major
I am, however, unsure why the author claims that mint does not adhere to the “principles of software freedom”. Maybe because,
Ah, good find. I guess technically Mint isn’t totally FLOSS, but it does seem a bit odd for them to phrase it that way.
But if that is the reason, then they should label most distros the same way. To give one example, Debian has bundled non-free firmware since Bookworm. It feels very odd for them to single out Mint like this, if that is in fact the reason.
Either way, they need to clearly spell out why they accuse Mint of this
Yes, especially when there is not a word of criticism about Ubuntu that had lots of controversies in the past. With Snap as the most recent and Amazon “integration” as the first I was aware of. That makes it sound more like a personal thing than objective assessment.
Yeah that’s very strange indeed, wonder what happened between them?