4 ms·

Why do you care about security fixes when updating the OS but you don't care about security fixes of apps? If an app is 2 years old it is probably using librari

by jorgemf 10y ago

Why do you care about security fixes when updating the OS but you don't care about security fixes of apps? If an app is 2 years old it is probably using libraries with security issues. I would blame the developer for not updating the app, not apple. (I am saying this as an app developer).

wang_li 10y ago
Not all apps involve connecting to an arbitrary set of network services or provide a listening port as an attack vector. Regardless, these are not exclusive values. We don't have to have one or the other. If Apple ships a device that is defective, it's bullshit for them to say "that piece of hardware is two years old, it's not going to get fixed." Ask yourself how many if the goods you have are less than two years old? I'm not saying they should bring every feature from all later releases to the older devices, but actual bugs should be fixed for longer than two years.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- jorgemf 10y ago
  I don't understand your comment. I am saying you should have updated SO and updated apps. Apple is in charge to update the SO and the app developers to update their apps.
  - wang_li 10y ago
    I'm saying that I should have a choice not to upgrade to the latest features -- including the dropping of support for 32-bit apps -- without having to give up security fixes, which are fundamentally defects in the product. Imagine if you bought an mp3 & aac player, amassed a collection of mp3 formatted audio, and then the vendor said "oh, we have to do an update because if we don't the player will explode. and we're removing the ability to play mp3 formatted music, but that's ok, you can play aacs." No one wants their audio player to explode, but by the same token it was sold as a device that plays mp3 and aac.
    - jorgemf 10y ago
      You can not upgrade, but you will have security issues. It is very hard to offer support for legacy systems. You should expect more than 2 year support. Software evolves really fast, companies cannot sit and wait. They will lose their hype and money.

by jorgemf 10y ago

wang_li 10y ago

Not all apps involve connecting to an arbitrary set of network services or provide a listening port as an attack vector. Regardless, these are not exclusive values. We don't have to have one or the other. If Apple ships a device that is defective, it's bullshit for them to say "that piece of hardware is two years old, it's not going to get fixed." Ask yourself how many if the goods you have are less than two years old? I'm not saying they should bring every feature from all later releases to the older devices, but actual bugs should be fixed for longer than two years.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
jorgemf 10y ago
I don't understand your comment. I am saying you should have updated SO and updated apps. Apple is in charge to update the SO and the app developers to update their apps.
- wang_li 10y ago
  I'm saying that I should have a choice not to upgrade to the latest features -- including the dropping of support for 32-bit apps -- without having to give up security fixes, which are fundamentally defects in the product. Imagine if you bought an mp3 & aac player, amassed a collection of mp3 formatted audio, and then the vendor said "oh, we have to do an update because if we don't the player will explode. and we're removing the ability to play mp3 formatted music, but that's ok, you can play aacs." No one wants their audio player to explode, but by the same token it was sold as a device that plays mp3 and aac.
  - jorgemf 10y ago
    You can not upgrade, but you will have security issues. It is very hard to offer support for legacy systems. You should expect more than 2 year support. Software evolves really fast, companies cannot sit and wait. They will lose their hype and money.