Exactly how vulnerable are unsupported versions of Ubuntu?

[deadflowr]

Not at all.

All my machines are running up-to-date Debian derivatives.

Rather than trying to encourage others to use unsupported OS's I was hoping to help assure them that their old XP machines - and there are very many of those which may be as much as ten years old - need not be sent to the dumpster. Such machines couldn't even run the lightweight spins of recent releases, as you know.

So what are those folks's options for replacing XP? A modern, command-line only Ubuntu (which is likely all many of those machines could run) to replace a full (though defunct) GUI in XP - or an older version of a more secure system than they had?

If you would rather let folk believe their old machines are of no more use when XP reaches OEL next April, with respect that's up to you. I believe in keeping my machines running for as long as possible, as far as is possible.

As i clearly don't understand - as a layman - what the big deal is, i started this thread to try to find out. I thought my question had been answered. It seems not.

If a machine can handle XP, then there is no reason it couldn't handle even the most lightest desktop variant of Ubuntu, or Debian.
A ten year old machine is still within the Pentium 4 era. Which is still plenty capable with modern Os's.

Now a machine from 15 to 20 years back may have some troubles.
But from my own recent experience, I know you run Lubuntu on a Pentium 3 based system, quite well.

It's less that the machines cannot handle the newest versions of the Os's, it is that the machines are more likely to fall apart from age.

[cariboo]

This thread has veered way off topic. Can we get it back on topic again.

[newb85]

XP users, after its EOL, would gain some, unknowable, degree of security if they moved to even an unsupported Linux, given the reduced number of attacks targeting that OS.

That's an interesting point. Microsoft's ten-year life cycle tends to make one forget Windows has an EOL. (At least those of us who aren't responsible for Windows machines )

[Hylas de Niall]

Well, "the big deal" is that if you run software that no longer receives security patches then that software is, at the least, vulnerable to attacks created after support ended for that software. Browsing habits, safe surfing, and all that are fine. But, they aren't a substitute for software patched to block a specific attack.

XP users, after its EOL, would gain some, unknowable, degree of security if they moved to even an unsupported Linux, given the reduced number of attacks targeting that OS. So, in an absolute sense, they'd be better off. They'd certainly avoid the flood of XP attacks we're likely going to see after XP support ends. (I'd also bet we will see scammers pushing $49.95 "lifetime security" kits for XP, too.)

Whether on old XP machine can run any modern Linux desktop depends, of course, on the hardware. Only one way to find out. If that old machine really can't run Linux, then their best option is to unplug it from the net.

And that's all i was trying to establish. Thank you