XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.sys.mac.system, comp.mobile.ipad
From: ithinkiam@gmail.com
Andrew wrote:
> Chris wrote on Thu, 4 Jul 2024 07:58:07 -0000 (UTC) :
>
>>> When the link propagates to the Usenet search engines, I will give you the
>>> link to the thread that asks directly of Android users your question.
>>
>> Why don't you do your own analysis? Like I did with the Apple releases to
>> show that Apple indeed does actively support multiple releases. It's not
>> like you have anything else to do.
>
> Only one word matters
What matters is that you make unsubstantiated claims based on third party
information or your own guess work, but when you're challenged you have
nothing to fall back on.
You don't do your own analysis because you can't. Then attack when things
are outside your narrow sphere of consciousness.
>>> What we KNOW is Apple says they do not do SIMULTANEOUS full support.
>>> What we want to narrow down is whether Google/Samsung say that, or not.
>>
>> I've shown that Apple actively supports iOS 15 onwards. Actions speak
>> louder than words.
>
> Do you think I don't understand
Yup.
>>> For known exploits, the information is all here for you to peruse.
>>>
>>
>> That's not an answer. Take Wannacry it reportedly cost $4bn in damage:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WannaCry_ransomware_attack
>
> Chris, do you think I'm not aware of the whataboutism that all you
> religious fundamentalist zealots employ to avoid answering the question?
You're the one who brought MS into the conversation as an example of good
software maintenance. I'm just highlighting what a stupid idea that was.
>>> The point you're missing is that if android only updates a select handful
>>>> of services and leaves the remainder unpatched and vulnerable then that's
>>>> not a fully supported OS. And is meaningless in terms of security.
>>>
>>> I understand why you're so emotionally desperate to claim that updating
>>> dozens of core modules for billions of Android phones monthly is
>>> "meaningless" in terms of security, we'll just have to disagree on that.
>>
>> What does fully supported OS look like to you?
>> "core services" or (B) actively patching all known vulnerabilities in the
>> OS?
>>
>> You seem to be demanding (B) of Apple, but accepting (A) for Android.
>> That's hardly a fair comparison.
>>
>> You're the one desperate to push a biased agenda based on your opinions
>> only.
>>
>> When you actually look at the facts the differences are minimal. But you're
>> not really interested in facts only bias affirming opinions.
>
> Chris. I have had small children. My children have had small children.
> My grandchildren just has babies. Stop acting like those small children.
Like Joerge says, you're projecting.
> Everyone who has any knowledge whatsoever of computers knows what it means.
Yet, you're not even prepared to explain it yourself either because you
don't understand it or are afraid of clarifying what you mean and having it
torn apart.
> I get it that you're desperate to find a flaw.
> I get it that you are embarrassed that you were wrong about Apple.
>
> I get it even that you're blissfully unaware that every operating system
> vendor will fix a bug or few in older releases when they're really bad.
>
> But fixing one bug and fixing every known bug are two different things.
Correct. I'm not convinced you realise which model you're in favour of.
> Apple promises only one thing, Chris - and it's not what you claim it is.
>
> If you can't answer this simple question, then I'm right about you zealots.
> Q: Does Apple publicly state that they only fully support a single release?
> A: Yes or No
It depends.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
