> On Sunday, in my article Home truths about macOS, I made some bold and important assertions that Apple doesn’t normally maintain even critical parts of macOS

> On Sunday, in my article Home truths about macOS, I made some bold and important assertions that Apple doesn’t normally maintain even critical parts of macOS once a version has been superseded as the current release. On Sunday the author also blew some anti-vax dogwhistles in that same article. > It’s a similar argument to that concerning vaccination of younger people against Covid or other generally non-fatal conditions. Most people under the age of 70 who are in reasonably good health should be safe from serious or prolonged illness or death. I'm not sure why the author threw in that nonsense in the last article but I'm calling it out once again because I think people need to be accountable for tossing around FUD and misinformation around subjects that have factual truths. The scientifically verified truth is that people of all ages benefit from getting the Covid-19 vaccine and boosters when it comes to Covid-19 outcomes, which don't just include the possibility of death but also include lingering or permanent negative affects. Back to the subject at hand, I don't understand the point of this exercise. Apple never claimed to maintain "critical subsystems" in previous OS versions, and I think the author of the article is using the "critical" verbiage to make it sound like a problem that Apple isn't maintaining APFS in previous versions of macOS. Is Microsoft maintaining NTFS in Windows 10?