>>10250
> I wonder if there is an "apt update"/"apt upgrade" thing which only applies critical security fixes, for those who only care about that.
There is systems and configurations that are supposed to be that way. Technically, CentOS used to be the perfect system for someone who just wanted stability because of being run Red Hat, which has version support for 10 whole years, keeping the same kernel and everything, but alas that is no longer the case. Debian would be the closest free thing you could run that way that is free.


>What if it isn't? What if I went with the default software versions from that ISO file?
>And such fixes should be available for "unsupported old distro versions".
Debian is the closet thing that fits that bill, but that is only the final 3 years of support of the normal release cycle. oldstable and oldoldstable.

>That computer isn't directly exposed to the Internet, because it is only reachable by the router's IP. It is as directly exposed over the Internet as being able to talk back and forth via popular protocols like HTTP. (I can ping online websites without failure.)
Then it is connected to the Internet. If you can log in and browse a normal web page it counts as connected. In which case, a potential security risk. How much? Well, some would say you are screwed and already hacked, but realistically you're probably okay. I mean, some retards still use live discs with default root access and if they survive alright. What are you using? Puppy Linux I know likes to use old files and has kept Ubuntu in a zombie state. Are you using some version of Ubuntu or something where the 64 bit support dropped? You should switch to Debian then, they still support 32bit.


>Otherwise, it is in a local network (10.0.0.9) behind a router, which that guy in youtube-zao2CUAP3dU said something about.
Don't know a thing about the video and probably won't watch it unless I am board.

>>10259