3 ms·

The burden of using the current version is so low (op is in fact expending significant effort to not make the safe choice), that imposing any additional risk on

The burden of using the current version is so low (op is in fact expending significant effort to not make the safe choice), that imposing any additional risk on others is unjustified. That kind of analysis—the burden of caution vs. the risk of not taking it—is how the law measures negligence. I’m not giving legal advice of course. But the law tracks the morality of negligence pretty closely in my opinion.

jdsully 7y ago
My 2011 macbook is already not supported by new versions and Mac hardware are not backwards compatible with older OS versions. It's extremely likely that they can't even run newer versions even if they wanted to. If not now then in the near future. I think trying to make any moral argument in this situation is pointless as the risks are so minuscule. But should we go down that road the environmental benefits of keeping older hardware in use for longer far outweighs any security risks they may impose on others.
Wowfunhappy 7y ago
> op is in fact expending significant effort And the reason I'm expending effort is because this is important to me. My computer isn't just a tool, it's where I spend a significant portion of my life. I want Mavericks's beautiful interface in my life. That has inherent value.
- marcoperaza 7y ago
  Is that a justification you'll be comfortable giving after the fact? "I know a took a risk with your private and sensitive [business/intimate] data that you trusted me with, and now it has been compromised, but you have to understand, the interface was so beautiful. It was worth it."
  - unionpivo 7y ago
    Small part of me agrees with you, but then again I see fortune 100 companies, banks and government getting away with similar or worse on regular. A few weeks ago, I pointed out to one of our clients that they are using vulnerable TLS library (with know exploits) on internet facing service. They scheduled upgrade for service in august next year. So honestly op running obsolete version of osx is really drop in the bucket.
  - e1ven 7y ago
    If he's using an up-to-date browser and a firewall it feels like the practical risk is relatively low. What remote exploits are you concerned about in that scenario? Where it would affect 10.9, but not 10.16. I'm not doubting they exist, but I'm really curious the threat scenario that would apply here, and how likely you think that might be.

jdsully 7y ago

My 2011 macbook is already not supported by new versions and Mac hardware are not backwards compatible with older OS versions. It's extremely likely that they can't even run newer versions even if they wanted to. If not now then in the near future. I think trying to make any moral argument in this situation is pointless as the risks are so minuscule. But should we go down that road the environmental benefits of keeping older hardware in use for longer far outweighs any security risks they may impose on others.

Wowfunhappy 7y ago

> op is in fact expending significant effort And the reason I'm expending effort is because this is important to me. My computer isn't just a tool, it's where I spend a significant portion of my life. I want Mavericks's beautiful interface in my life. That has inherent value.

marcoperaza 7y ago
Is that a justification you'll be comfortable giving after the fact? "I know a took a risk with your private and sensitive [business/intimate] data that you trusted me with, and now it has been compromised, but you have to understand, the interface was so beautiful. It was worth it."
- unionpivo 7y ago
  Small part of me agrees with you, but then again I see fortune 100 companies, banks and government getting away with similar or worse on regular. A few weeks ago, I pointed out to one of our clients that they are using vulnerable TLS library (with know exploits) on internet facing service. They scheduled upgrade for service in august next year. So honestly op running obsolete version of osx is really drop in the bucket.
- e1ven 7y ago
  If he's using an up-to-date browser and a firewall it feels like the practical risk is relatively low. What remote exploits are you concerned about in that scenario? Where it would affect 10.9, but not 10.16. I'm not doubting they exist, but I'm really curious the threat scenario that would apply here, and how likely you think that might be.