# Add Pop!_OS **URL:** https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/add-pop-os/10587 **Category:** Tool Suggestions **Tags:** rejected **Created:** 2022-12-02T07:13:58Z **Posts:** 82 ## Post 1 by @Anvil — 2022-12-02T07:13:58Z I love Pop!\_OS and I think it’s a much better choice than fedora for people who aren’t as worried about security and just want to stop supporting surveillance capitalism. I understand that there are numerous security issues with frozen release cycles and with Ubuntu-based distros in general. However, based on my experience with Fedora, it is not a great recommendation for people new to linux. You don’t get basic features by default like a dock or tray icons. You have to dig around figuring out how to install codecs to watch simple videos online. The software manager makes you reboot every time there’s any update, no matter how small. And, in my experience, kernel updates seem to break random hardware every other update (tbf this is on a 10 year old machine, but still). It doesn’t seem like these kernel updates go through much testing. I’ve used Pop!\_OS on multiple machines with very few issues. When I have had problems, the refresh OS feature, which I haven’t seen in any other linux OS, was an absolute lifesaver. Pop!\_OS was just extremely simple and intuitive compared to stock Fedora, and seemed much more appropriate for newcomers to linux. For your average person who just wants to stop supporting surveillance capitalism and isn’t too worried about OS security, it’s an excellent option. You can put all the warnings you want about security and stuff, but I hope you’ll consider adding Pop!\_OS to the linux section. --- ## Post 2 by @anon73250778 — 2022-12-02T07:46:34Z > [@Anvil](#): > > However, based on my experience with Fedora, it is not a great recommendation for people new to linux. You don’t get basic features by default like a dock or tray icons. You have to dig around figuring out how to install codecs to watch simple videos online. The software manager makes you reboot every time there’s any update, no matter how small. I wonder when was your last experience if Fedora was. I tried it around version 32-34 and I would agree with you then but at version 36 to 37, I would agree with the current recommendation as it is. Couple that with Secure Boot (which Pop\_OS! doesnt have). Granted, my desktop also has an Nvidia card and has an obligatory disabled Secure Boot, I feel like I can trust Fedora more (especially with its Silverblue variant), on my laptop which has AMD graphics and full disk encryption. --- ## Post 3 by @dngray — 2022-12-02T07:47:11Z We won’t be considering it until they switch to their COSMIC environment and Wayland is enabled by default. [https://www.privacyguides.org/os/linux-overview/#wayland](https://www.privacyguides.org/os/linux-overview/#wayland) --- ## Post 4 by @Anvil — 2022-12-02T07:54:16Z I understand. I know less about COSMIC but I understand Wayland is a pretty big deal. I have it enabled. I hope they make these changes soon. --- ## Post 5 by @Anvil — 2022-12-02T07:57:50Z I’ve tried it recently but only in VMs. The last time I tried it on bare metal was fedora 34 I believe. --- ## Post 6 by @Anvil — 2022-12-02T15:02:09Z Would you consider adding it with a warning about Wayland and instructions for how to enable it? --- ## Post 7 by @dngray — 2022-12-02T15:03:35Z Not at this point, the page is not supposed to be an exhaustive list of all Linux distributions. --- ## Post 8 by @jji77860 — 2022-12-05T15:17:00Z > [@Anvil](#): > > isn’t too worried about OS security Here in PG, they don’t even recommend F-Droid. Pop!\_OS uses the stable kernel instead of LTS supplied from Ubuntu. Can you confirm that all packages are compiled against the Pop!\_OS supplied kernel instead of LTS one? It brings new issues to users. --- ## Post 9 by @Anvil — 2022-12-05T18:06:39Z I see F-Droid as a little different, because Neo Store is as easy to use or perhaps easier than F-Droid. Based on my experience as a linux newb who tried using fedora because of the pguides recommendation, I don’t see fedora as something people new to linux should attempt as a daily driver. As for your comments about Pop!\_OS, all I can say is I haven’t had many issues installing apps in the couple years I’ve been daily driving it, which I could not say about fedora, where it was often hard to find rpms of apps I wanted (though this may not be as much of an issue anymore since flatpak has gotten a lot better). --- ## Post 10 by @dngray — 2022-12-06T02:53:10Z > [@Anvil](#): > > F-Droid as a little different, because Neo Store is as easy to use or perhaps easier than F-Droid It’s worth noting, we don’t recommend [F-Droid as a source](https://www.privacyguides.org/android/#f-droid), not just as a app. --- ## Post 11 by @Anvil — 2022-12-07T17:25:44Z Oh my bad, thanks for clarifying. I think this gets into broader questions I have about the role of a resource like Privacy Guides. I appreciate the high bar for privacy and security set by Privacy Guides- it means that for most threat models, the software listed is trustworthy and safe no matter what. However, I also don’t think everyone needs such a high bar. Take the surveillance capitalism threat model for example- I believe regular people can avoid surveillance capitalism with an acceptable level of risk by using less secure things like Jitsi and F-Droid and Pop!\_OS to achieve that goal. So, I understand this desire to recommend only things that people can completely trust, but I wonder there are other ways to organize the website, with different recommendations or “paths” for different threat models. I don’t know the right answer, and this might not even be the right place to discuss it. Just trying to offer my perspective :slight_smile: --- ## Post 12 by @jji77860 — 2022-12-09T12:06:03Z The way F-Droid is building apps on their platform is by compiling it against android 7.1 API level, in market we have android 13 running now. So apps itself are good, but not the way they are built by the platform is not good. No Community is attacking F-Droid, I use it personally on my phone. But community members are very edgy, it may look like toxic, but writer has no intention of attacking the project. Words written on the screen don’t harm anybody. Do what is best for your **threat model** , most important thing in your life **is you.** Pop!\_OS is good distribution but does not confirm to PG’s criteria for linux, that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t use it. You have no obligation read this post or follow us. Chill man don’t get upset. **Do what you think is best for you.** > [@Anvil](#): > > this might not even be the right place to discuss it This community is made for people like you to give suggestions and improve PG. Thanks for participating in the discussion. --- ## Post 13 by @ikelatomig — 2022-12-27T06:01:33Z If these 2 are achieved, will you add it or is there something it still misses ? --- ## Post 15 by @Nostradamus — 2023-03-15T04:06:02Z @dngray I would also like to know this. --- ## Post 16 by @dumpster — 2023-04-09T17:18:08Z Even with the new desktop environment and Wayland enabled, Pop will still have the problem of old Ubuntu packages. Pop does backport some core components, such as the kernel and mesa, but most software in the repos is stuck at the Ubuntu base. PG doesn’t recommend Ubuntu, which (last I checked) has Wayland supported and enabled by default. Any Ubuntu fork almost certainly has the same old software problem of Ubuntu. I am looking forward to trying Cosmic, but installed on a Fedora or Arch base. --- ## Post 17 by @Nostradamus — 2023-04-14T03:28:24Z To my understanding they have their own repo and a their testing circle for apps. --- ## Post 18 by @dngray — 2023-04-14T09:29:28Z > [@dumpster](#): > > PG doesn’t recommend Ubuntu, which (last I checked) has Wayland supported and enabled by default We should probably revisit that, as I think that was the only reason. --- ## Post 19 by @anon46880256 — 2023-04-14T11:07:07Z Aren’t Ubuntu repos very out of date? > [@dumpster](#): > > Any Ubuntu fork almost certainly has the same old software problem of Ubuntu. --- ## Post 20 by @Nostradamus — 2023-04-15T15:47:30Z So thinking this through again PG criteria allows distros to hold packages for not more than a year so a non-LTS Ubuntu variant that uses wayland should meet the criteria. Even tho Fedora would be preferred. As for pop\_os, I wouldn’t hold Ubuntu’s packaging against them because: - They have a separate repo and test things separately - They bundle Flatpak instead of snaps Those aren’t always on their flavors because I had seen them hold packages/kernel for longer than Ubuntu to keep compatibility for nvidia drivers on their nvidia iso, but this is the reason I would like them to still be considered after they get Cosmic because they are in my experience the most stable distro on devices with those graphic cards. VS Fedora that usually breaks when kernel gets ahead nvidia support. --- ## Post 21 by @anon5233878 — 2023-10-14T17:31:58Z Are there any others reasons not to recommend Pop!\_OS if Wayland is now enabled by default, other than the COSMC DE? Is there a specific reason why we should wait until the COSMIC DE is released anyway? --- ## Post 22 by @Voilable — 2023-10-14T21:28:19Z Why would they add PopOS if it’s based on Ubuntu and they can just put that if they need it --- ## Post 23 by @anon5233878 — 2023-10-14T21:53:46Z I would say one reason would be that Pop!\_OS uses Flatpaks instead of Snaps. Another one would be that it does not have features that require an Ubuntu One account (as far as I am aware.) Further reading: > [@Fedora is not a user friendly Linux Distro](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/fedora-is-not-a-user-friendly-linux-distro/13241/21): > > The previous discussion on Ubuntu is worth another look: [https://github.com/orgs/privacyguides/discussions/317](https://github.com/orgs/privacyguides/discussions/317) The privacy concerns with snaps are still valid, and they are still pushy about linking to an Ubuntu One account. I just reinstalled Ubuntu last night to look at it more and nothing has really changed from the statements there. The snap thing in particular is enough for me to not want to endorse Ubuntu. Not just the privacy concerns brought up there, although those are big, but also… > **[Creating a criteria for the OS page. · privacyguides · Discussion #317](https://github.com/orgs/privacyguides/discussions/317)** > > I think recommending Ubuntu as a distribution for privacy (esecially for new users) is a very bad idea for a multitude of reasons and I'd suggest removing it from the list entirely. Snapd Ubuntu pu... --- ## Post 24 by @xe3 — 2023-10-15T01:47:30Z > I would say one reason would be that Pop!\_OS uses Flatpaks This doesn’t improve security or privacy. If anything, it seems like a potential mild downgrade to security on an Ubuntu derivative distro. > Another one would be that it does not have features that require an Ubuntu One account Neither does Ubuntu afaik. Assuming you are talking about Ubuntu Pro or Live-Patch, I think you may be confused about what they are. They are _totally optional_ and are _‘in addition to’_ Ubuntu (the distro) and geared towards enterprise customers and server installs. If you choose not to use them you won’t be foregoing any core part of Ubuntu Desktop or of Pop!\_OS. It’s hard to complain about completely optional services, they are there for those who need them and can be ignored by everyone else. The only thing you have to do to not use these features is: _nothing_. And the only difference with respect to these features and Pop\_OS vs Ubuntu is with Ubuntu you have the choice to use them if you want, with Pop\_OS you just don’t get the choice. > Are there any others reasons not to recommend Pop!\_OS if Wayland is now enabled by default, other than the COSMC DE? The big 3 for me (the last time I looked at Pop! which was ~2 years ago) were: 1. Still uses Xorg by default 2. Still no secure boot ootb 3. Based on an older version of Ubuntu (22.04) Points 1 & 3 should theoretically be resolved after Cosmic is released and matures. If they address point 2 as well, I think Pop! would be a solid contender. --- ## Post 25 by @Private_Plan — 2023-10-15T06:33:31Z Pop OS is a good distro. I’d wait until their Cosmic DE is released before recommending it, it seems to be releasing soon and we don’t know how it’s going to be. The things I’d mention can be problematic to the recommendation are: - Defaults to X - No secure boot at all - Does not use Ubuntu repositories at all anymore, [they use their own repos](https://twitter.com/jeremy_soller/status/1466789512072228867), which makes Pop OS further from Ubuntu and may have security implications (?) I’d personally go with Fedora, Kubuntu (snaps replaced with Flatpak) or even Linux Mint, but Pop OS is also a great system, specially for beginners. --- ## Post 26 by @anon5233878 — 2023-10-15T09:35:53Z Do you mind elaborating on the security downsides of using flatpaks on an Ubuntu derived distro? From the privacy perspective, I was mainly talking about the open-source nature of flatpaks compared to snaps. Although open-source doesn’t guarantee privacy or security, it’s more about the ideology of it being open-source. The concerns both you and @Private_Plan pointed out are valid and could very well be solved with COSMIC. @Private_Plan From what I know, It is possible to enable secure boot with Pop!\_OS, it just isn’t on by default. I would assume there would be compatibility issues with doing this though. --- ## Post 27 by @Private_Plan — 2023-10-17T18:48:44Z > [@anon5233878](#): > > From what I know, It is possible to enable secure boot with Pop!\_OS, it just isn’t on by default. That’s totally true, one can self-sign their own kernel and it will work. However, that’s not exactly something that someone coming from Windows, a total beginner would know how to do. Hence why it’s important to Pop OS to ship their kernels signed. --- ## Post 28 by @xe3 — 2023-10-17T19:33:12Z > [@Private_Plan](#): > > That’s totally true, one can self-sign their own kernel and it will work. > > However, that’s not exactly something that someone coming from Windows, a total beginner would know how to do. Hence why it’s important to Pop OS to ship their kernels signed. I agree, I mean heck its not just new users coming from Windows, most experienced Linux users can’t manually implement secure boot with self-signed keys. --- ## Post 29 by @lepras — 2023-12-24T11:07:11Z Hey I was considering buying > **[Laptops](https://system76.com/laptops)** How is Pop OS from Privacy and Security Standpoint? --- ## Post 30 by @anon97654407 — 2023-12-24T20:14:40Z > [@dngray](#): > > switch to their COSMIC environment I have no clue why the current DE Pop!\_OS uses is a deal-breaker. --- ## Post 31 by @Anvil — 2023-12-24T21:02:19Z Because the one they currently use is an old version maybe? --- ## Post 32 by @Nostradamus — 2023-12-24T21:37:36Z Almost _any_ linux distro will be more private than windows/mac. Security wise, Fedora/OpenSuse have better defaults. --- ## Post 33 by @lepras — 2023-12-25T06:26:09Z > [@Nostradamus](#): > > Almost _any_ linux distro will be more private then windows/mac. not ubuntu :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: --- ## Post 34 by @exaCORE — 2023-12-25T06:54:16Z That is incorrect. Ubuntu is still orders of magnitude better than windows. I dont know about mac, but as i do not trust apple much, i would personally choose ubuntu over mac --- ## Post 35 by @dngray — 2023-12-25T10:37:34Z These days ubuntu is about as good as anything else, there’s one opt out telemetry thing in the setup and that’s it. The lense thing is way in the past and there’s no amazon store so nothing much to worry about. > [@lepras](#): > > How is Pop OS from Privacy and Security Standpoint? We only allow distributions which support [Wayland](https://www.privacyguides.org/en/os/linux-overview/#wayland). We’re waiting to see how their new Rust based desktop environment COSMIC works out that uses Wayland. --- ## Post 36 by @lepras — 2023-12-25T11:40:55Z > [@dngray](#): > > These days ubuntu is about as good as anything else, there’s one opt out telemetry thing in the setup and that’s it. Ohhh I must be outdated then. They seemed quite anti-GNU, anti-freedom when I looked into them (maybe quite a long time ago) --- ## Post 37 by @anon97654407 — 2023-12-25T11:52:26Z > [@dngray](#): > > We only allow distributions which support [Wayland](https://www.privacyguides.org/en/os/linux-overview/#wayland). We’re waiting to see how their new Rust based desktop environment COSMIC works out that uses Wayland. So, the current DE Pop!\_OS uses X11 instead of Wayland? --- ## Post 38 by @Anvil — 2023-12-25T14:29:16Z Wayland is disabled by default on the current version of Pop OS. It can be easily enabled by following the instructions here though: [https://unix.stackexchange.com/a/730441](https://unix.stackexchange.com/a/730441) I’m not sure why wayland is currently disabled by default, but it should be enabled by default with the update that includes the new COSMIC DE. --- ## Post 39 by @anon73250778 — 2023-12-26T10:38:36Z You still have to completely surrender yourself to Snaps (if you are keen on using GUI). --- ## Post 40 by @lepras — 2023-12-26T11:05:58Z yeah, that’s the only valid argument against ubuntu now. --- ## Post 41 by @anon73250778 — 2023-12-26T11:39:18Z I want to move to ubuntu to my daily driver because it actually seems faster than Fedora (and I have the option to install signal but they keep getting in my way. --- ## Post 42 by @lepras — 2023-12-26T14:56:42Z > [@anon73250778](#): > > Fedora I think silverblue is still better if ubuntu doesn’t have immutability just yet. --- ## Post 43 by @anon73250778 — 2023-12-26T14:58:54Z Silverblue feels appropriate for intel/radeon graphics. But because of the need for 3rd party repository, thus breaking the “atomicity” in principle, Nvidia feels better on the regular Fedora. --- ## Post 44 by @lepras — 2023-12-26T15:00:11Z > [@anon73250778](#): > > intel/radeon graphics because of the need for 3rd party repository, thus breaking the “atomicity” in principle, ohhhh I have to think about this, thank you! --- ## Post 45 by @anon49304593 — 2023-12-29T13:09:09Z This does not break atomicity, it simply means that updates and other changes will take longer to apply. The process itself is still atomic. --- ## Post 46 by @lepras — 2023-12-30T12:25:13Z > [@anon49304593](#): > > The process itself is still atomic. makes sense --- ## Post 47 by @anon21489307 — 2023-12-30T16:51:41Z > [@Anvil](#): > > I’m not sure why wayland is currently disabled by default, Because their line ups are NVIDIA only, which don’t work well under Wayland (until recently)? --- ## Post 48 by @Naser — 2024-07-08T06:17:46Z So there’s nothing else that makes it not recommended? I can just enable Wayland and then use it? --- ## Post 49 by @Naser — 2024-07-08T06:25:06Z > **[Pop!_OS](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pop!_OS)** > > Pop OS (stylized as Pop!_OS) is a free and open-source Linux distribution, based on Ubuntu, and featuring a customized GNOME desktop environment known as COSMIC. The distribution is developed by American Linux computer manufacturer System76. Pop!_OS is primarily built to be bundled with the computers built by System76, but can also be downloaded and installed on most computers. > Pop!_OS provides full out-of-the-box support for both AMD and Nvidia GPUs. Pop!_OS provides default disk encryption,... It says it already uses Cosmic? Am I missing something? --- ## Post 50 by @xe3 — 2024-07-08T10:42:04Z > [@Naser](#): > > It says it already uses Cosmic? Am I missing something? Yes, they named their lightly tweaked version of gnome, Cosmic, before they decided to make their own Desktop Environment (also called Cosmic) that is the source of the confusion, (what you are reading is referring to the former, not to Cosmic the desktop environment). --- ## Post 51 by @dumpster — 2024-07-09T06:55:35Z Pop OS doesn’t officially support Wayland (yet). If you enable Wayland, you may encounter bugs. Also, the current release of Pop OS is based on Ubuntu 22.04, so you are stuck with some pretty old packages in the repos, which Privacy Guides recommends against. --- ## Post 52 by @ScappyCilantro — 2025-01-01T14:30:29Z With the COSMIC release in late alpha now (and expected full release towards the end of Q1 2025), would it be worth beginning to recap whether it will live up to the requirements for being recommended? I’d still hold off on actually recommending it until the stable release is out, but it seems that most of the issues in this thread are resolved in the COSMIC release. --- ## Post 53 by @fria — 2025-01-01T15:00:18Z Let’s just wait until it’s out, no need to rush anything. --- ## Post 54 by @Cyber-Typhoon — 2025-01-01T15:42:24Z How the Cosmic release addresses been stuck with Ubuntu release cycles? --- ## Post 55 by @ScappyCilantro — 2025-01-01T18:15:13Z According to their documentation they do rolling releases: > Pop!\_OS is built from Ubuntu repositories, meaning you get the same access to software as Ubuntu. Based on both user feedback and in-house testing, we continue to make changes and updates to the operating system for quality-of-life improvements. The best part is, updates are kept on a rolling release cycle, so you don’t have to wait around 6 months for bug fixes or improvements to your OS. [[1](https://support.system76.com/articles/difference-between-pop-ubuntu)] --- ## Post 57 by @bitsondatadev — 2025-01-02T04:12:12Z This is quite exciting to see things are closer for general acceptance with pop os. I’ve been testing it out for almost a year now for a year to see if there is finally a Linux version that I can successfully move my family to and from the stuff all my nontech family cares about so seeing that the main concerns brought up here may be adressed shortly is great. --- ## Post 58 by @TheG — 2025-01-02T17:33:29Z PopOS has a very outdated veesion of gnome which does not support the lates security features of wayland unlike latest gnome versions. --- ## Post 59 by @ScappyCilantro — 2025-01-08T00:00:27Z Not to worry, we’re not discussing the 22.04 LTS, but the future 24.04 release with COSMIC, which does support and defaults to Wayland. --- ## Post 60 by @iluvprivacy — 2025-06-30T01:26:41Z Surprisingly, Michael Bazell recommends Pop! OS doesn’t recommend any other Linux distribution. I wonder why PG feels differently from him. --- ## Post 63 by @anon98749087 — 2025-12-30T02:18:28Z Has there been any thought of revisiting pop!\_os now that Cosmic is ready? Are there benefits to at least switching to Cosmic on Fedora while this is being revisited? Or, are the benefits of Cosmic best enjoyed when paired with pop!\_os? --- ## Post 64 by @anon6103674 — 2026-02-10T09:52:28Z I installed it to see what all the fuss was about and I have to admit it’s great. Simple to install, encrypt, number of preinstalled packages comparable to Fedora, easy enabled codecs, packages that I use just worked and are pretty up-to-date. DE is has rolling updates and majority of packages also (kernel, mesa, etc). COSMIC really feels like home for my user needs and I’ll keep on using it. I can see it taking a huge percentage of marketshare from GNOME and KDE very soon. Also. I’m sure it’s more secure, minimal and modern than them. Oh yea, everyone has a .deb package available when needed… that can’t be said for Fedora and .rpm (government apps, etc). TLDR: It’s great and I’m going to recommend it to everyone who wants to use Linux. --- ## Post 65 by @autfernandez1987 — 2026-02-25T09:34:00Z I’ve been trying out Cosmic alongside Gnome for the last nine months, and about a month ago it became my favorite DE. Sure, I miss the “wobbly windows” effect and would love the calendar widget to be synced up with Evolution but, for one thing, the tiling experience has improved a lot. --- ## Post 67 by @Linus_Sex_Tips — 2026-05-12T14:29:25Z I use COSMIC and have been for a couple months (on secureblue). I like it, I enjoy using it. But it is absolutely not stable, new bugs every release that break important flows (like the applications menu just not opening at all). --- ## Post 68 by @Lukas — 2026-05-12T14:45:27Z Pop!\_OS is a fork of Ubuntu, which is a fork of Debian. So not only is it a fork of a fork, but it’s also Debian based, which is not good: [Linux Overview - Privacy Guides](https://www.privacyguides.org/en/os/linux-overview/) On top of that, Pop!\_OS is pretty much a security downgrade compared to all of the currently recommended distributions. --- ## Post 69 by @autfernandez1987 — 2026-05-12T14:49:23Z I’ve been using Cosmic as the default DE for about half a year now (after having used Gnome for over ten years) and it’s definitely my favorite these days. I can concur bugs keep popping up every now and then, but IMO it’s perfectly usable for tech enthousiast. @Lukas Perhaps instead of Pop!\_OS we can focus on Cosmic, since Cosmic can be used on arch based distros (e.g. I’m using it on top of Garuda). --- ## Post 70 by @iluvprivacy — 2026-08-07T07:22:02Z What needs to be done before Pop!\_OS is recommended? --- ## Post 71 by @Lukas — 2026-08-07T07:29:14Z 1. Moving away from Ubuntu and Debian. --- ## Post 72 by @iluvprivacy — 2026-08-07T08:53:56Z I don’t think that’s going to happen. --- ## Post 73 by @john.982387487 — 2026-08-07T12:22:58Z In contrary, all my experience with Ubuntu is garbage. And I’ve compiled kernel for Ubuntu 15, 16 and 17 because I needed drivers for laptop touchpad and usb lte modem. Down the line of updates htere are accumulation of update failure because of dependence. That was few years ago. Then I’ve tried PopOS! last year and I’ve run to same error in… 3 months. Never again I touch anything Ubuntu related. I have dislike for anything debian because of that. --- ## Post 74 by @TheDoc — 2026-08-07T13:32:04Z Not necessarily, Ubuntu has interim releases every 6 months when an LTS isn’t being released and Pop!\_OS used to have interim releases as well. If they went back to it, they’d probably meet the criteria. I remember there being some talk of turning Pop!\_OS into a semi-rolling release akin to Fedora, not sure where they are with that today as I imagine most of their resources go towards developing COSMIC. --- ## Post 75 by @sha123 — 2026-08-07T15:35:08Z > [@john.982387487](#): > > Never again I touch anything Ubuntu related Ubuntu seems quite slow at fixing stuff. The only good reason to use Ubuntu I can think of, is if you want to heavily make use of Apparmor, because Ubuntu’s kernel often has important Apparmor features years earlier than upstream kernel. --- ## Post 76 by @Cyber-Typhoon — 2026-08-07T16:09:29Z > [@iluvprivacy](#): > > What needs to be done before Pop!\_OS is recommended? They at least need to start keeping up with Ubuntu kernel version. Pop!\_OS is still on [kernel 6.17.9](https://www.distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=popos) Ubuntu is on [kernel 7](https://www.distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=ubuntu) since 26.04 LTS release. --- ## Post 77 by @notwithstanding — 2026-08-07T18:10:53Z The 7.0 kernel was only release 4 months ago. They are not that far behind. Additionally, I’m a bit surprised that Ubuntu chose kernel v7.0 for its LTS, because it isn’t even an LTS kernel version (the last LTS kernel version seems to have been v6.18). The most recent kernel versions (v7.0 and v7.1) have a support lifetime of seemingly a few months after the following minor version release. --- ## Post 78 by @Cyber-Typhoon — 2026-08-07T18:22:51Z > [@notwithstanding](#): > > The 7.0 kernel was only release 4 months ago. They are not that far behind. I’m not sure that I agree that this is not that far behind. 4 months in today’s technology pace seems a bit too much. I’d expect that a distro based on another to follow closer the upstream kernel updates. Yes, Ubuntu is now pushing harder to adopt newer latest kernel in their LTS releases. --- ## Post 79 by @notwithstanding — 2026-08-07T20:05:14Z > I’m not sure that I agree that this is not that far behind. **4 months in today’s technology pace seems a bit too much.** I’d expect that a distro based on another to follow closer the upstream kernel updates. (emphasis mine) It would be, if they weren’t back-porting security updates, which is (I assume) what you’re referring to. Like I mentioned, the most recent LTS kernel version was 6.18, so if they are tracking that, it would be fine. Also, I just checked for myself, and [this page](https://system76.com/download-pop/) seems to suggest that Pop!\_OS 24.04 LTS is using kernel version 7.0.9. So I guess the point is entirely moot anyway. --- ## Post 80 by @Cyber-Typhoon — 2026-08-07T20:13:56Z > [@notwithstanding](#): > > It would be, if they weren’t back-porting security updates, which is (I assume) what you’re referring to. Not really, I’m thinking on new features introduced. I think security wise Pop!\_OS keeps close to upstream but can’t really tell since I never used their distro can’t find good reliable source of information. > [@notwithstanding](#): > > Also, I just checked for myself, and [this page](https://system76.com/download-pop/) seems to suggest that Pop!\_OS 24.04 LTS is using kernel version 7.0.9. So I guess the point is entirely moot anyway. Isn’t this their custom kernel that isn’t “default” (look how it says 24.04 LTS)? Which is exactly what could lead to less hardware support: [Pop!os 24.04 - Bluetooth not working with fix - Linux - Framework Community](https://community.frame.work/t/pop-os-24-04-bluetooth-not-working-with-fix/82930) A Framework Laptop 16 user in June 2026 documented a real case where System76’s kernel (`7.0.9-76070009` on Pop!\_OS 24.04) **lagged behind Ubuntu’s HWE kernel on a critical Bluetooth driver fix**. The `btmtk` driver bug was already patched in Ubuntu’s HWE 6.18+ kernel, but System76’s custom kernel didn’t have it yet. The user had to manually switch to Ubuntu’s HWE kernel to get working Bluetooth. This illustrates the core problem: System76 maintains their own kernel fork, which means every upstream fix has to be reviewed, rebased, tested, and shipped by their team. Ubuntu’s HWE stack, by contrast, pulls directly from Canonical’s kernel team with a more predictable cadence. --- ## Post 81 by @notwithstanding — 2026-08-08T13:47:01Z Yes, that’s a choice by the maintainers, and not necessarily the wrong one simply because some bugs take longer to fix. If they are prioritizing stability to some degree (like Debian, for instance) then that’s fine. So long as they aren’t leaving security holes unpatched, it is a matter of opinion (and so up to individuals to device) if their approach is correct. --- ## Post 82 by @Cyber-Typhoon — 2026-08-08T14:31:28Z > [@notwithstanding](#): > > So long as they aren’t leaving security hole Indirectly, this approach of creating their own kernel somewhat affects security. I don’t know an user of Pop!\_OS that keep signing the secure boot for those custom kernels. In other words, technically secure boot is supported but I don’t recall seeing any documentation from Pop!\_OS about how we can do it, contrary, they request to disable during installation and no mention on a guide to get it to work.