stratology wrote: Guenon wrote:
Not when it's actually true and can be used as a valid description of what's going on in a given text
Old technology, regardless of whether it's supported and patched, does not gain any new technology features of newer OS releases, including architectural improvements to security.
Missing out on 8 years of architectural and feature improvements is 'a valid description of what's going on', IMHO.
Ah, you're talking about that. No, in this context commenting on the difference between an unsupported and a supported OS is not a straw man at all. It was merely a reply to the ideas you brought up, yourself.
The compromised systems you mentioned were not up to date, and represented 0.016% of the whole userbase of the OS family. That percentage, in turn, was a reply to the percentage you mentioned yourself, of how the (unsupported
) OSX version from the same year has a <1% userbase of that respective OS family.
More importantly, however, note that this whole tangent emerged from you trying to bring it up as a separate argument, likening a still supported OS with an unsupported one while pointing at absolute numbers instead of relative, and a subset of not up to date systems as representative of a still supported OS (that didn't
have the said problem when kept up to date).
See the attempted strawmanning there? And that wasn't even the specific case I was referring to.
I was thinking more about all of those "ah so you don't do [X] / ah so you do [X] when you use your system, greeeat" remarks that you throw around as lists. Remarks that imply [X], or depending on the case [not X], is the way things are
, and that it's bad, and thus something is bad as a consequence of it.
See my reply to the latest one of your posts like that. But seriously. This doesn't change the main problems in Apple's policies and computer systems, mentioned in this thread, one bit.
Given those problems, and how in turn those random lists you construct contain assumptions that often aren't clear-cut or even true as a rule, or are inconsequential when put into the bigger picture (again, see my replies)... my attitude towards such implied boogeyboos is, they are straw man at their core, albeit perhaps unintentionally. As in, I admit that it may well be how you really view these things instead of just trying to argue for argument's sake in order to divert from the main problems in Apple's policies and computer systems. To me, It really really feels like the latter, though.