4 ms·
100% agree. This is such an idiotic standard, they might as well stop lying and just say the truth: "if you're not on auto update, fuck you". What's worse is p
by 2h 3y ago
100% agree. This is such an idiotic standard, they might as well stop lying and just say the truth: "if you're not on auto update, fuck you".
What's worse is people copycat this "baseline", and if you try to argue sanity, they just say "sure it's what Chrome/Firefox recommend" without knowing or caring that they are only supporting months old browsers now. It's madness.
- simonw 3y agoGiven how security critical a web browser is, why wouldn't you be running auto update for it?
- 2h 3y agoYes, well said. We should just force updates upon users. Block all websites unless user is on latest version, and close the source code to prevent compiling older versions. Can't be too careful.
- tambourine_man 3y agoBecause your OS doesn’t support a newer version. Chrome 109 is the last version to support Windows 8. There are a lot of people on systems even older than that.
- dialogbox 3y agoIMO, this kind of pressure is needed and helpful to let people upgrade the vulnerable OS versions. Without it, people may stay forever with Windows XP.
- userbinator 3y agoFuck that and the rest of the e-waste-generating degenerate corporate-authoritarian brainless drones.
- bruce511 3y agoI hear you, I'm not a fan of just throwing things away. But internet-connected devices are a special case which deserves consideration. Unfortunately Operating Systems, and the software that runs on them is imperfect. People are spending a lot of energy finding, and creating exploits based on, those imperfections. An old car can be used almost infinitum, if there's any danger it's likely to be to itself, or at worst very local to others. However an exploited old machine on a LAN, is dangerous to the entire LAN. And beyond. There are hardware iterations that create a specific cut-off, but I don't think Windows 10 was one. (As i recall, if it could run Windows 8 it could run Windows 10 AND the upgrade was/is free.) Yes there is -really- old hardware out there running XP, even DOS, but I'd argue its not something you should expose to the Internet, even as a client. Running old browers, and related software, to browse the modern Web, is a very risky game with a very large penalty for failure. In that context I'm happy to build sites targeting "current software".
- badsectoracula 3y ago> e-waste-generating degenerate corporate-authoritarian brainless drones. If it is e-waste you are worried about you can always use Linux to keep your older machines useful as that both allows them to run better than Windows with a lightweight DE while also using the latest versions of the available software with all the security fixes. You also get to have more control of how your computer will behave too.
- replygirl 3y agoThis hypothetical project gets a lot of revenue from people with 10 year old computers to justify a decrease in productivity for 0.56% higher potential reach
- waboremo 3y agoWindows 8 and 8.1 is already EOL. No regular consumer should still be on it.
- glandium 3y agoThere are still more people using Firefox on Windows 7 than using Firefox on macOS (or if that's not the case anymore, the flip would have been recent).
- noirscape 3y agoI ran tech support for the elderly a couple years ago. There was a ridiculous amount of people who were still on Windows 7 because they bought their laptop in 2012 and only use it to exchange emails with their grandkids, do their banking and read the news. They never bought anything new or did any major upgrades because their system doesn't "feel old" so they see no use for it. This is also why XPs complete ESR support ended in 2019. What I just said about people also applies to certain organizations like governments, who'd rather pay through the nose for that ESR support than upgrade. That's just the reality of it all. There's a reason why Android is so extremely pushy with installing updates to Chrome et al. in the background (and why Androids old OS depreciation process is so slow) - users just flat out don't update their software or their hardware if they don't feel the need to. EOL from a company means nothing. People will absolutely stick on years old hardware if they can help it as long as it works for them, and you're going to still be the one on the hook unless it's truly ancient tech. (We're currently at the point where if someone uses Vista, you could probably tell them to update? Keep in mind that Vista got EOLed in 2016. Windows 7 is kinda heading in that direction, but I'm not seeing that happen until another 2 to 3 years have passed at least).
- tambourine_man 3y agoExactly. The bubble these people in my replies are in and aren't even aware is surprising.
- mr_toad 3y agoEnterprise, because reasons.
- userbinator 3y ago[flagged]
- dialogbox 3y agoWithout the "security", you won't even know if someone secretly shoved down your throats that craps. If you live in a world which doesn't need the "security", congrets. But it's critical to the most of us.
- KyeRussell 3y agoBe an iota more specific than that. An iota. If you can, with a straight face, I’ll eat my hat. The argument of “this doesn’t cater for the super-minority of nerdy power user ideologues”, that’s honestly not going to roll commercially, sorry. If we are talking about the regular adoption curve, enterprises holding things back, or literally just…anything more than you and RMS, I just don’t see that as remotely relevant.
- replygirl 3y agoTo be fair, if you don't click the button in the corner and you're not airgapped, what two words better capture my response to the liability of supporting you?