3 ms·

Not sure why you are so downvoted, because indeed Apple only does full security updates for the very newest (now 26): https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/10/ap

by 1over137 10mo ago

Not sure why you are so downvoted, because indeed Apple only does full security updates for the very newest (now 26): https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/10/apple-clarifies-security-update-policy-only-the-latest-oses-are-fully-patched/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/10/apple-clarifies-secu...

schmuckonwheels 10mo ago
Because it's factually incorrect. Ars Technica, a clickbait aggregator whom should have been banned from this site long ago, is hardly a reliable source.
- akyuu 10mo ago
  As far as I know, it is factually correct. https://www.intego.com/mac-security-blog/apples-poor-patching-policies-potentially-make-users-security-and-privacy-precarious/ https://www.intego.com/mac-security-blog/apples-poor-patchin...
- p_ing 10mo ago
  https://support.apple.com/guide/deployment/about-software-updates-depc4c80847a/web https://support.apple.com/guide/deployment/about-software-up... > Note: Because of dependency on architecture and system changes to any current version of Apple operating systems (for example, macOS 26, iOS 26, and so on), not all known security issues are addressed in previous versions (for example, macOS 15, iOS 18, and so on).
doodlebugging 10mo ago
Thanks for that link. Before reading I was in the process of migrating all my stuff from a Windows7 machine, deduping archives and identifying software that I may still need to run in a VM somewhere or on a tablet. I had considered flipping to Apple devices since I have an iPhone but have never pulled the trigger on any of that. I was considering iMacs instead of a Linux box for a more seamless interface with the phone. After reading that article where it is apparent that Apple has intentionally used terms that sound similar to obscure what the customer is actually gaining when they upgrade versus update and they intentionally omit the part about older devices not getting all the security updates that are pushed in the updates. I now have some clarity. I can focus on moving to Linux and in time will be ditching the iPhone. Should've done this years ago.

schmuckonwheels 10mo ago

Because it's factually incorrect. Ars Technica, a clickbait aggregator whom should have been banned from this site long ago, is hardly a reliable source.

akyuu 10mo ago
As far as I know, it is factually correct. https://www.intego.com/mac-security-blog/apples-poor-patching-policies-potentially-make-users-security-and-privacy-precarious/ https://www.intego.com/mac-security-blog/apples-poor-patchin...
p_ing 10mo ago
https://support.apple.com/guide/deployment/about-software-updates-depc4c80847a/web https://support.apple.com/guide/deployment/about-software-up... > Note: Because of dependency on architecture and system changes to any current version of Apple operating systems (for example, macOS 26, iOS 26, and so on), not all known security issues are addressed in previous versions (for example, macOS 15, iOS 18, and so on).

doodlebugging 10mo ago

Thanks for that link. Before reading I was in the process of migrating all my stuff from a Windows7 machine, deduping archives and identifying software that I may still need to run in a VM somewhere or on a tablet. I had considered flipping to Apple devices since I have an iPhone but have never pulled the trigger on any of that. I was considering iMacs instead of a Linux box for a more seamless interface with the phone. After reading that article where it is apparent that Apple has intentionally used terms that sound similar to obscure what the customer is actually gaining when they upgrade versus update and they intentionally omit the part about older devices not getting all the security updates that are pushed in the updates. I now have some clarity. I can focus on moving to Linux and in time will be ditching the iPhone. Should've done this years ago.