I've got Ubuntu 22.04 lying around that still update because they are LTS. Ubuntu has a well publicised policy for releases and you will have obviously read them.

Try do-release-upgrade.

You also mention "OS supplied from a vendor with extensive customization. Apt was dead."

How on earth is that Ubuntu's problem?

Isn’t Ubuntu basically killing apt?

My Ubuntu became unusable because it kept insisting on installing a snap version of Firefox breaking a whole bunch of workflows.

I do want to try a RH based OS (maybe Fedora) so they don’t keep changing things on me, but just where I am in life right now I don’t have the time/energy to do so, so for now I’m relying on my Mac.

Hopefully I can try a new Linux distro in a few months, because I can’t figure it out yet, but something about macOS simply doesn’t work for me from a getting work done perspective.

I've heard many good things about Pop OS. It's like Ubuntu done right, and it does have an apt package for Firefox.

(I run Void myself, and stay merrily away from all these complications.)

In Ubuntu, it's also possible to ditch Firefox from the snap store and install it using apt-get. Not from Ubuntu's repo, but from the official Firefox Debian repository:

https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2022/04/how-to-install-firefox-d...

I know it's not the best but at least it can be done with little effort.

I can highly recommend it. Have been using it for a couple years or so now, haven't had any serious issues.

> It's like Ubuntu done right

But it is Ubuntu?

It's based on Ubuntu, but it's different enough: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pop!_OS

I have been using Fedora Sway as my desktop operating system for a couple years now and I am very happy. It’s definitely worth a try. I have access to flatpak when I need it for apps like steam but the system is still managed by rpm/dnf. There’s of course some SELinux pain but that’s typically my fault for holding it wrong. Overall very impressed.

I cannot update the OS per the contract.

It’s Ubuntu’s problem because they decide they’re smarter than their users and nuke their repos.

Fuck all of that.

It's well publicized that they don't maintain support for old, non-LTS distros. They literally delivered what they promised. Could have been avoided by using an LTS distro.

Fedora does the same. No corporate vendor supports 6 month cycle distros for more than a year. RHEL releases come super slowly, for example.

I didn’t have a say in the matter of OS choice, it doesn’t matter how well-publicized Ubuntu’s stance is, it’s wrong. I don’t care if it’s not an LTS, keep the fucking repos open and advertise you’re using an insecure OS. Let me, the user, make that choice. Don’t pretend I’m stupid and need some kind of benevolent dictator to make choices for me, or handicap me because they’re smarter than me. They’re not.

That’s exactly how it works. If you want to use an unsupported, insecure OS, you just have to opt into it.

You opt into it by changing your repositories to the https://old-releases.ubuntu.com archive mirror. You can install and use Ubuntu 6.10 if you want.

If there's no cost in time, effort or equipment then mirror it yourself. It's easy, right?

Or just use an LTS distro like literally every single other organization that depends on Ubuntu for their business SMH. Like, it's absurd to even think about...

You ignored the premise. I can’t update. Shake you head, I didn’t make the call, canonical did.

Anyhow someone else showed they do indeed host old repos, just in a different place. Also, why can't you update? Who the hell made that contract? And is it the client the said you can't update or Canonical? Because the latter seems sus...

I can see that you’re now realizing, I didn’t have a say in the constraints. I also hate said constraints. Hand I was dealt.

Ubuntu is a cancer on the gnu/linux/open source community.

I get your frustration but this is really a problem of the vendor. We had something similar about 3 years ago, where a vendor delivered a proprietary driver for a piece of hardware that only worked with a specific 2.6 Linux kernel version--making it at least six years old. Is this the Linux project's fault? I don't think so.

The vendor should provide you with updates to the new version, or use LTS. There's absolutely nothing here bad on the Ubuntu part.

Your contract is with the vendor if you have one. Unless you have a contract with Canonical and then you can ask them for support.

Oh, you got that bit of fun... That's not an apt problem, that's a Ubuntu problem (and it's a reason I encourage people to either stick to LTS if they must use Ubuntu, or just run Debian or and other distro which doesn't block upgrades).

Well that's just plain incompetent on the part of your vendor.

23.10 is not an LTS version and Ubuntu only provide updates for a short period of time (6 months or so after the next version is released), so the vendor should have upgraded it to 24.04 which IS an LTS version.

It's like you're complaining to Microsoft about a vendor giving you an old XP machine and that you can't update it.

I think the more apt (pun not intended) comparison would be to macOS? Trying to install macOS High Sierra from the Internet without hackery will lead to "the recovery server could not be contacted" error message, because certificates have expired. Like if your Mac came with High Sierra and you want to do a factory reset.

Windows from that era still updates. Though up next will be expiration of Windows UEFI CA 2011 which will certainly lead to boot problems for some.

you need to file a support ticket with the organization that provided the laptop. they chose to provide you with what amounts to a technology preview with a very limited lifespan. [0]

0: https://ubuntu.com/about/release-cycle