From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

Jolly Roger wrote on 30 Jun 2024 23:38:49 GMT :

It's really sad that that character trait is prevalent today in so many people.

Says Jolly Roger who lied for years claiming that Apple fully supported
more than a single release when even Apple wouldn't spew that brazen lie.

<https://screenrant.com/apple-product-security-update-lifespan/>
<https://hothardware.com/news/apple-admits-only-fully-patches-security-flaws-in-latest-os-releases>
<https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/10/apple-clarifies-security-update-policy-only-the-latest-oses-are-fully-patched/>

Back to the topic at hand, the fact is Apple products don't work in the
real world if you simply don't log into Apple mainframe servers daily.

1. You can't do the simplest things without logging into Apple's mainframe
2. You can't install apps
3. You can't use the messenger app the way you're used to using it
4. You can't use the facetime app
5. You can't use activation Lock
6. You can't do seamless Apple Music or Apple TV+ streaming across devices
7. You can't use homeKit-compatible devices
8. You can't back up your installed IPAs
9. You can't even update the operating system
etc.

There is only one other common consumer operating system set up as a
similar dumb terminal lacking even the most basic functionality, and that's ChromeOS (which might even be worse than iOS given how limited it too is).

ChromeOS === iOS (same dumb terminal concept)

Both ChromeOS & iOS have no innate functionality without constantly logging into the Apple mainframe matrix servers for most of its basic capabilities.
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

On 2024-06-30 18:12, Andrew wrote:

Jolly Roger wrote on 30 Jun 2024 23:38:49 GMT :

It's really sad that that character trait is prevalent today in so many
people.

Says Jolly Roger who lied for years claiming that Apple fully supported
more than a single release when even Apple wouldn't spew that brazen lie.

"Sponsored", Arlen?

<https://screenrant.com/apple-product-security-update-lifespan/>
<https://hothardware.com/news/apple-admits-only-fully-patches-security-flaws-in-latest-os-releases>
<https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/10/apple-clarifies-security-update-policy-only-the-latest-oses-are-fully-patched/>

Back to the topic at hand, the fact is Apple products don't work in the
real world if you simply don't log into Apple mainframe servers daily.

1. You can't do the simplest things without logging into Apple's mainframe

False.

2. You can't install apps

Sort of true.

3. You can't use the messenger app the way you're used to using it

Depends on the app.

4. You can't use the facetime app

True, but there is no requirement to use that app.

5. You can't use activation Lock

????

6. You can't do seamless Apple Music or Apple TV+ streaming across devices

How would you do that without a consistent ID?

7. You can't use homeKit-compatible devices

Cite, please!

8. You can't back up your installed IPAs

False.

9. You can't even update the operating system

False.
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

On 2024-07-01, Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:

Jolly Roger wrote on 30 Jun 2024 23:38:49 GMT :

It's really sad that that character trait is prevalent today in so
many people.

Says Jolly Roger who lied for years claiming that Apple fully
supported more than a single release when even Apple wouldn't spew
that brazen lie.

I've never said that. Like Trump and Republican politicians, Andrew just
spews outright lies, but he can't show a single post from me saying what
he claims. And like Trump and Republican politicians, Andrew's trolls
are as weak as his intellect.
--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

Jolly Roger wrote on 1 Jul 2024 03:09:02 GMT :

Says Jolly Roger who lied for years claiming that Apple fully
supported more than a single release when even Apple wouldn't spew
that brazen lie.

I've never said that.

It's not surprising that you lie about your brazen lies, Jolly Roger.

Remember, I've studied you strange Apple religious zealots & what pops up consistently is you *hate* that Apple isn't what Apple advertises it is.

The fact is Apple has the worst operating system bugfix support of all
common consumer operating systems - and even Apple says this is the case.
<https://support.apple.com/guide/deployment/about-software-updates-depc4c80847a/>

Apple's hotfix support is not only the worst in the industry, but Apple's
iOS monolith didn't even have the concept of a "hotfix" until recently.
<https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201224>

What you dislike about me, Jolly Roger, is you have no defense to facts.
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

On 2024-07-01, Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:

Jolly Roger wrote on 1 Jul 2024 03:09:02 GMT :

Says Jolly Roger who lied for years claiming that Apple fully
supported more than a single release when even Apple wouldn't spew
that brazen lie.

I've never said that.

It's not surprising that you lie

Notice how little Andrew can't provide a cite of me saying what he
claims. Instead, like a child, he just doubles down on his lame lie.
Lies and weak zealot trolls are all Andrew has to offer this news group.
--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

Jolly Roger wrote on 1 Jul 2024 13:56:47 GMT :

Notice how little Andrew can't provide a cite of me saying what he
claims. Instead, like a child, he just doubles down on his lame lie.
Lies and weak zealot trolls are all Andrew has to offer this news group.

Heh heh heh... you lied for years, Jolly Roger... and you still lie.

Want proof?
Simply answer this direct question with a YES or NO please.

Q: Does Apple fix all known bugs in only the latest iOS/macOS release?
A: (YES or NO)

HINT: There's a reason the iPhone is the most exploited phone in history.
<https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog>
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

On 2024-07-01, Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:

Jolly Roger wrote on 1 Jul 2024 13:56:47 GMT :

Notice how little Andrew can't provide a cite of me saying what he
claims. Instead, like a child, he just doubles down on his lame lie.
Lies and weak zealot trolls are all Andrew has to offer this news group.

Heh heh heh...

Still no cite. Your trolls are weak, little boy.
--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

Jolly Roger wrote on 1 Jul 2024 16:28:14 GMT :

Notice how little Andrew can't provide a cite of me saying what he
claims. Instead, like a child, he just doubles down on his lame lie.
Lies and weak zealot trolls are all Andrew has to offer this news group.

Heh heh heh...

Still no cite. Your trolls are weak, little boy.

Heh heh heh... You don't even know the answer to that question, JR.
That's how little you strange religious zealots know about Apple products.

Q: Does Apple fix all known bugs in only the latest iOS/macOS release?
A: No.
Unlike every other common consumer operating system which fully
supports more than one release, Apple has never fully supported
more than a single release. That's how bad Apple support truly is.

Worse, you don't even remember your own lies, Jolly Roger, where you claim
that the mere fact Apple fixed *one* bug in an older release, means, (to
people like you) that Apple fixed *all* the known bugs in that release.

Always remember how much you *hate* that Apple never is what you wish Apple was, where, to compensate for Apple not being what you wish Apple was,
you lied for years that Apple fixed all known bugs in older releases.

If you insist, I'll pull up *many* cites where you lied that way, JR.
Test me.
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

Andrew wrote on Mon, 1 Jul 2024 22:37:35 -0000 (UTC) :

Q: Does Apple fix all known bugs in only the latest iOS/macOS release?
A: No.
Unlike every other common consumer operating system which fully
supports more than one release, Apple has never fully supported
more than a single release. That's how bad Apple support truly is.

Oops. YES. Apple was forced to publish recently that Apple has never
provided the full hotfix support that all other common consumer operating systems provide - in that Apple only fully supports 1 & only 1 release.

<https://screenrant.com/apple-product-security-update-lifespan/>
<https://hothardware.com/news/apple-admits-only-fully-patches-security-flaws-in-latest-os-releases>
<https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/10/apple-clarifies-security-update-policy-only-the-latest-oses-are-fully-patched/>

What's no longer shocking isn't that Apple has the absolute worst operating system bugfix support in the industry - but that the strange Apple
religious fundamentalist zealots are completely ignorant of this fact.

Worse than having the worst promised hotfix support in the industry, Apple
also has the shortest when compared to major OEMs like Google & Samsung.
<https://www.androidauthority.com/iphone-software-support-commitment-3449135/>

There's a reason the iPhone is the most exploited phone in history.
<https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog>
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

On 2024-07-01, Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:

Jolly Roger wrote on 1 Jul 2024 16:28:14 GMT :

Notice how little Andrew can't provide a cite of me saying what he
claims. Instead, like a child, he just doubles down on his lame lie.
Lies and weak zealot trolls are all Andrew has to offer this news group. >>>

Heh heh heh...

Still no cite. Your trolls are weak, little boy.

Heh heh heh...

Still no cite. You lose.
--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

Jolly Roger wrote on 1 Jul 2024 23:08:59 GMT :

Still no cite. Your trolls are weak, little boy.

Heh heh heh...

Still no cite. You lose.

It's no longer shocking you're ashamed of your own words.

In the time IOS updates once - Android updates a thousand times <https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/>

You claim because Apple fixed one bug in an older release, that they fixed
them all (which is patently absurd - but it's how you zealots think).
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

On 2024-07-01 19:28, Andrew wrote:

Jolly Roger wrote on 1 Jul 2024 23:08:59 GMT :

Still no cite. Your trolls are weak, little boy.

Heh heh heh...

Still no cite. You lose.

It's no longer shocking...

...that when you're challenged to provide a cite, you have nothing?

No: that's no longer shocking at all!

:-)


--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

Andrew wrote on Tue, 2 Jul 2024 02:28:13 -0000 (UTC) :

Heh heh heh...

Still no cite. You lose.

It's no longer shocking you're ashamed of your own words.

In the time IOS updates once - Android updates a thousand times <https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/>

You claim because Apple fixed one bug in an older release, that they fixed them all (which is patently absurd - but it's how you zealots think).

The URL got truncated, but it's just one of extremely many instances where Jolly Roger claimed that simply because Apple fixed one bug in an older release, that EVERY bug that Apple knew about in those releases was fixed.

In the time IOS updates once - Android updates a thousand times
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/tyM38E9o9vE/>

The fact is these strange Apple religious zealots lied about it for years!
More evidence low-IQ iKooks don't understand how a MODERN OS is updated
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/Vp9fPsDbJ1g/>
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

On 2024-07-02, Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:

Jolly Roger wrote on 1 Jul 2024 23:08:59 GMT :

Still no cite. Your trolls are weak, little boy.

Heh heh heh...

Still no cite. You lose.

It's no longer shocking you're ashamed of your own words.

It's no longer shocking you can't prove your lies.

You claim because Apple fixed one bug in an older release, that they
fixed them all

I never said that. Yet another lie you can't back up.

Your trolls are as weak as your intellect, little Andrew.
--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

On 2024-07-02, Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:

Andrew wrote on Tue, 2 Jul 2024 02:28:13 -0000 (UTC) :

Jolly Roger claimed that simply because Apple fixed one bug in an
older release, that EVERY bug that Apple knew about in those releases
was fixed.

I did not in fact make that claim. And little Andrew can't provide a
cite of me saying it either, as usual. His lies are weak.
--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

Jolly Roger wrote on 2 Jul 2024 15:32:37 GMT :

Jolly Roger claimed that simply because Apple fixed one bug in an
older release, that EVERY bug that Apple knew about in those releases
was fixed.

I did not in fact make that claim.

And yet, you did.

You claimed that just because Apple fixed a single bug in an older release, that *all* the bugs Apple knew about in those older releases, was fixed.

The cites clearly show you've lied about Apple support for years.

And it's hot just Jolly Roger who lied about Apple support for years.

Look here where Chris brazenly lies to badgolferman's face about it:
<https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=13727&group=misc.phone.mobile.iphone#13727>
<https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=13728&group=misc.phone.mobile.iphone#13728>
<https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=13729&group=misc.phone.mobile.iphone#13729>

And then, you, Jolly Roger, again brazenly lie to badgolgerman in support of Chris' lies.
<https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=13731&group=misc.phone.mobile.iphone#13731>

Since all you iKooks are dead wrong about Apple support, only two conclusions are possible:
<https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=13706&group=misc.phone.mobile.iphone#>

a. Either you're incredibly ignorant about how Apple updates iOS
(and yet, you're supremely confident in your total ignorance!)
b. Or, you are simply deceitful cold-hearted uncouth brazen liars

Pick one.

The fact remains, even Apple says they've never fully supported anything more than a _single_ iOS release (or macOS for that matter) in their entire history.
<https://support.apple.com/guide/deployment/about-software-updates-depc4c80847a/>

The only people saying Apple does fully support more than one release
are these strangely ignorant Apple fundamentalist religious zealots.
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

Jolly Roger wrote on 2 Jul 2024 15:30:39 GMT :

You claim because Apple fixed one bug in an older release, that they
fixed them all

I never said that. Yet another lie you can't back up.

And yet, you did.
Many times, in fact.

You claimed that just because Apple fixed a single bug in an older release, that *all* the bugs Apple knew about in those older releases, was fixed.

And it's not just you who is that incredibly ignorant of Apple updates.
Most of the uneducated Apple religious fundamentalists have said this.

The cites clearly show you have lied about Apple support for years.
And it's hot just Jolly Roger who lied about Apple support for years.

Look here where Chris brazenly lies to badgolferman's face about it: <https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=13727&group=misc.phone.mobile.iphone#13727>
<https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=13728&group=misc.phone.mobile.iphone#13728>
<https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=13729&group=misc.phone.mobile.iphone#13729>

And then, you, Jolly Roger, again brazenly lie to badgolgerman in support
of Chris' brazen lies about Apple support for older releases. <https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=13731&group=misc.phone.mobile.iphone#13731>

Since all you iKooks are dead wrong about Apple support, only two
conclusions are possible (both of which could be simultaneous). <https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=13706&group=misc.phone.mobile.iphone#>

a. Either you're incredibly ignorant about how Apple updates iOS
(and yet, you're supremely confident in your total ignorance!)
b. Or, you are simply deceitful cold-hearted uncouth brazen liars

Pick one or both.

The fact remains, even Apple says they've never fully supported anything
more than a _single_ iOS release (or macOS) in their entire history. <https://support.apple.com/guide/deployment/about-software-updates-depc4c80847a/>

The only people saying Apple fully supports more than one release
are these strangely ignorant Apple fundamentalist religious zealots.
--
It's sad that I don't even care about Apple and yet I still know more about Apple product updates than all these ignorant uneducatred zealots combined.
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

On 2024-07-02 10:43, Andrew wrote:

Jolly Roger wrote on 2 Jul 2024 15:30:39 GMT :

You claim because Apple fixed one bug in an older release, that they
fixed them all

I never said that. Yet another lie you can't back up.

And yet, you did.
Many times, in fact.

You claimed that just because Apple fixed a single bug in an older release, that *all* the bugs Apple knew about in those older releases, was fixed.

And it's not just you who is that incredibly ignorant of Apple updates.
Most of the uneducated Apple religious fundamentalists have said this.

The cites clearly show you have lied about Apple support for years.
And it's hot just Jolly Roger who lied about Apple support for years.

Look here where Chris brazenly lies to badgolferman's face about it: <https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=13727&group=misc.phone.mobile.iphone#13727>
<https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=13728&group=misc.phone.mobile.iphone#13728>
<https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=13729&group=misc.phone.mobile.iphone#13729>

And then, you, Jolly Roger, again brazenly lie to badgolgerman in support
of Chris' brazen lies about Apple support for older releases. <https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=13731&group=misc.phone.mobile.iphone#13731>

Since all you iKooks are dead wrong about Apple support, only two
conclusions are possible (both of which could be simultaneous). <https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=13706&group=misc.phone.mobile.iphone#>

a. Either you're incredibly ignorant about how Apple updates iOS
(and yet, you're supremely confident in your total ignorance!)
b. Or, you are simply deceitful cold-hearted uncouth brazen liars

Pick one or both.

The fact remains, even Apple says they've never fully supported anything
more than a _single_ iOS release (or macOS) in their entire history. <https://support.apple.com/guide/deployment/about-software-updates-depc4c80847a/>

The only people saying Apple fully supports more than one release
are these strangely ignorant Apple fundamentalist religious zealots.

What an incredible liar AND idiot you are:

Your quote from JR includes this:

'Naturally this means that if you are running an older version of an
operating system, some bugs may not be patched as quickly (or at all if
it's a really old version).'

That is precisely contradictory of what you claim he has stated.
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

On 2024-07-02, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

On 2024-07-02 10:43, Andrew wrote:

Jolly Roger wrote on 2 Jul 2024 15:30:39 GMT :

You claim because Apple fixed one bug in an older release, that
they fixed them all

I never said that. Yet another lie you can't back up.

And yet, you did.

[snip]

And then, you, Jolly Roger, again brazenly lie to badgolgerman in
support of Chris' brazen lies about Apple support for older releases.
<https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=13731&group=misc.phone.mobile.iphone#13731>

What an incredible liar AND idiot you are:

Your quote from JR includes this:

'Naturally this means that if you are running an older version of an operating system, some bugs may not be patched as quickly (or at all
if it's a really old version).'

That is precisely contradictory of what you claim he has stated.

Right? It's as if he thinks nobody will bother to fact check his brazen
lies. He must take his cues from Trump and his lying cohort of
Republicans. He probably looks up to them, because here he is using the
exact same playbook as them to hoodwink their gullible cult.
--
"If you repeat a lie often enough, [gullible] people will believe it,
and you will even come to believe it yourself." ~ Joseph Goebbels

JR
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

Jolly Roger wrote on 2 Jul 2024 21:34:20 GMT :

He must take his cues from Trump and his lying cohort of
Republicans

The fact you've never heard me say anything good about Trump and yet you
still are too stupid to realize that, indicates your low IQ, Jolly Roger.

However... to stay on topic, all you have to do is stop lying about Apple support being the best in the industry when it's clearly the worst, JR.

Just stop it.
Let Apple marketing do all that lying.

a. Google/Samsung have 7 years of promised support, while Apple has 5.
b. Google/Samsung promise up to 7 releases of full hotfix support;
while Apple has only one.
c. Google updates all Android 10+ phones monthly over the net; while
Apple only started hotfix patches in iOS 16 with the RSR concept.

There's a reason Apple products are the most exploited in history, JR.
<https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog>
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:

Jolly Roger wrote on 2 Jul 2024 15:32:37 GMT :

Jolly Roger claimed that simply because Apple fixed one bug in an
older release, that EVERY bug that Apple knew about in those releases
was fixed.

I did not in fact make that claim.

And yet, you did.

You claimed that just because Apple fixed a single bug in an older
release, that *all* the bugs Apple knew about in those older releases, was fixed.

The cites clearly show you've lied about Apple support for years.

And it's hot just Jolly Roger who lied about Apple support for years.

Look here where Chris brazenly lies to badgolferman's face about it:
<https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=13727&group=misc.phone.mobile.iphone#13727>
<https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=13728&group=misc.phone.mobile.iphone#13728>
<https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=13729&group=misc.phone.mobile.iphone#13729>

Like Trump you have a very vague relationship with the truth and facts so you're not a great judge.

Please point explicitly to where I "brazenly" (lol!) lied.

--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:

Jolly Roger wrote on 2 Jul 2024 21:34:20 GMT :

He must take his cues from Trump and his lying cohort of
Republicans

The fact you've never heard me say anything good about Trump and yet you still are too stupid to realize that, indicates your low IQ, Jolly Roger.

However... to stay on topic, all you have to do is stop lying about Apple support being the best in the industry when it's clearly the worst, JR.

Just stop it.
Let Apple marketing do all that lying.

a. Google/Samsung have 7 years of promised support,

That's a new policy and no current phone is covered by it. Only new models going forward and I expect either a cull of cheaper models to the market or some exceptions to come in.

They have been forced to do this as their support of current and older
models has been woeful. Approx 2-3 years was what you could hope for. Even
for flagship models.

Compare these...
https://endoflife.date/pixel
https://endoflife.date/android

...with this
https://endoflife.date/iphone

It's quite obvious which is better supported.
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

Chris wrote on Wed, 3 Jul 2024 07:30:11 -0000 (UTC) :

a. Google/Samsung have 7 years of promised support,

That's a new policy and no current phone is covered by it.

Bullshit. Google & Samsung have been five years published for a while.

Plus that includes *multiple* releases (whereas Apple only fully supports a single release - all other consumer operating systems fully support
multiple releases).

Plus Google has been updating *all Android phones* with Android 10 and
above over the Internet for the two dozen core operating system modules.

That has no known EOL date so as far as we know it goes on forever
(especially as every one of those modules is donated to the AOSP).

No matter how you look at it, Apple has the worst operating system support
in the industry - which you are desperate to try to deny - but you can't.

Only new models
going forward and I expect either a cull of cheaper models to the market or some exceptions to come in.

Samsung and Google make most of the Android phones out there, so their
policy is the one that matters the most to the Android community.

Apple has never had a published operating system support policy, and only recently, when forced to by the EU, did Apple publish that they'll only
promise five years and a single release of iOS support.

Again, the worst in the industry.

They have been forced to do this as their support of current and older
models has been woeful. Approx 2-3 years was what you could hope for. Even for flagship models.

Bullshit. Android has been fully supporting over two dozen core operating system modules since Android 10 - which is billions of Android phones.

The fact you know none of this and yet you dispute that Apple has the worst operating system support in the industry - shows how much of a religious fundamentalist zealot wacko you are - since no facts are employed when you formed your strongly held purely religious belief system about Apple
support.

There's a reason the iPhone is the most exploited smartphone in history.
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

Chris wrote on Wed, 3 Jul 2024 07:23:05 -0000 (UTC) :

Please point explicitly to where I "brazenly" (lol!) lied.

Simply answer this basic question, Chris, with a yes or with a no.

Q: Does Apple publish that they only fully support a single release?
A: Yes or No

Hint: Because of all your prior lies, you won't answer that question.
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:

Chris wrote on Wed, 3 Jul 2024 07:30:11 -0000 (UTC) :

a. Google/Samsung have 7 years of promised support,

That's a new policy and no current phone is covered by it.

Bullshit. Google & Samsung have been five years published for a while.

Nope. Google published theirs in Oct/Nov last year and Samsung earlier this year.

Plus that includes *multiple* releases

Over the seven years, yes, but there's no mention of *concurrent* support
for multiple releases. I'd be very, very surprised that they will support
six versions of the OS at the same thing.

(whereas Apple only fully supports a
single release

Incorrect. Over the course of the lifetime of phone it gets multiple fully supported releases. Typically 5 or 6.

Just like google/samsung's promise.

- all other consumer operating systems fully support

multiple releases).

Plus Google has been updating *all Android phones* with Android 10 and
above over the Internet for the two dozen core operating system modules.

Meaningless. That isn't "full" support as you love to shout about.

That has no known EOL date so as far as we know it goes on forever

You're a very funny man. I hope you don't actually believe that.

<see my snipped urls for the facts >

They have been forced to do this as their support of current and older
models has been woeful. Approx 2-3 years was what you could hope for. Even >> for flagship models.

Bullshit. Android has been fully supporting over two dozen core operating system modules since Android 10 - which is billions of Android phones.

Hahaha! "Fully supporting select services" is laughable.

--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:

Chris wrote on Wed, 3 Jul 2024 07:23:05 -0000 (UTC) :

Please point explicitly to where I "brazenly" (lol!) lied.

Simply answer this basic question,

You first. Answer my request above.


--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

Chris wrote on Wed, 3 Jul 2024 11:23:09 -0000 (UTC) :

Simply answer this basic question,

You first. Answer my request above.

Heh... heh... heh... Now how did I know you would continue to brazenly lie
just to get out of answering that simple yes-or-no question, Chris.

You lie so much you are even denying your own words, Chris.
<https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=13727&group=misc.phone.mobile.iphone#13727>
Chris: "there have been 14 major versions. Probably the most 2-3
recent are supported"
Chris: "iOS 15, 16 and 17 have received several updates this year.
IOS 15 supports back to the iphone 6 which is nearly
nine years old."

Then badgolferman directly calls you out on your brazen lies, Chris.
<https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=13728&group=misc.phone.mobile.iphone#13728>
badgolferman: "Apple admits to only fully supporting the current
software version (17) with security updates.
How are you claiming 15,16, 17 are supported?"

To which you continue to brazenly lie to badgolferman's face, Chris.
<https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=13729&group=misc.phone.mobile.iphone#13729>
Chris: "You can see that two or three have been updated at the same
three times this year alone: 22nd Jan, 5th Mar, 22nd Mar.
Since the release of iOS 17, iOS 16 has received eight updates
and iOS 15 has received three."

To bolster your brazen lies to badgolferman, Jolly Roger also lies.
<https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=13731&group=misc.phone.mobile.iphone#13731>
Jolly Roger: "we're supposed to ignore reality: 67% of devices
run iOS 17, 19% run iOS 16, 8% run iOS 15 = 94% of devices
are running the three most recent versions of iOS.
As you have shown, Apple is patching iOS 17 through iOS 15."

But it doesn't matter to me that you fundamentalists deny your own lies.
You actually *hate* that I tell you the truth about Apple products.

Assuming you and Jolly Roger read the cites (which isn't even a certainty, given you still claim Apple fully supports more than one release at a
time), then you're either too low of an IQ to understand them - or you lie.

Pick one.

Trust me, I'm fully cognizant you Apple nutcases are embarrassed by your
own words, Chris - as I'm well aware you deny even what Apple wsa forced to admit because, in truth, you *hate* that Apple is never what you thought it was.

Partly this isn't your fault as Apple marketing has been brilliant in
feeding ignorant gullible herd animals that they have the "best" support.

Which, is funny, really: as Apple has the worst support in the industry:
a. 1 release has full hot-fix support (everyone else is multiple releases)
b. Only 5 years (whereas both Samsung & Google are 7 years full support)
c. No hotfix capability until iOS 16 (no other OS is as primitive as iOS)
etc.

Anyway, I've proven time and again you religious fundamentalists don't even understand how Apple updates iOS & macOS, and that you resort to lies.

Now answer the basic question - or - continue to lie about Apple support.
Your choice.

Simply answer this basic question, Chris, with a yes or with a no.

Q: Does Apple publish that they only fully support a single release?
A: Yes or No

Hint: Because of all your prior lies, you won't answer that question.
Now how did I know that? (heh heh heh... you're like small children.)

1. You know absolutely nothing about how any operating system updates
2. You religiously believe Apple fully supports multiple releases
3. Even when Apple themselves says they've never done that, Chris.

Not only should you no longer wonder why Apple devices are the most
exploited in history, Chris - but you should not even bother to wonder why
I say you strange religious zealots have an abnormally low IQ, Chris.

Like a religious zealot, Chris, you deny even what Apple doesn't deny.
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

Jolly Roger wrote on 2 Jul 2024 15:30:39 GMT :

You claim because Apple fixed one bug in an older release, that they
fixed them all

I never said that. Yet another lie you can't back up.

I feel sorry for you strange religious zealots because you hate that I tell
you things about Apple that you wish weren't true - and yet - they are.

The fact is that your IQ is too low to comprehend the difference between
Apple fixing one bug in an older release and the promise by Apple to fix
all bugs it knows about - but only in the latest release - and no others.

While that concept is inherently simple - you can't comprehend that fixing
one bug is not the same as the promise to fix all bugs Apple knows about.

Note that I'm being charitable given I've proved you lied and you still
deny your own words - even as I quoted them faithfully with the cites.

The fact you're ashamed that you lied for years about Apple support aside,
what you need to do is answer this simple basic question with Yes or No.

Q: Does Apple publish that they only fully support a single release?
A: Yes or No

I know you won't answer that question because you hate that it's so easy to prove that Apple has the worst operating system support in the industry.

You strange religious zealots hate me for proving that fact with cites.
So be it.

I have two roles on these strangely child-like Apple Usenet newsgroups:
1. State the truth (with cites) about Apple products, and,
2. Prove how strange you uneducated religious fanatics truly are.
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

Chris wrote on Wed, 3 Jul 2024 11:23:08 -0000 (UTC) :

Bullshit. Google & Samsung have been five years published for a while.

Nope. Google published theirs in Oct/Nov last year and Samsung earlier this year.

I feel your frantic desperation to deny what the recently published
statements from Apple/Google/Samsung promise (all of which came out at the
same time due to EU requirements) - but you have to accept the facts.

Only recently did the EU force OEMs to state the promised full support
lifetime of their operating systems, which is when they published this:
1. Apple === 5 years (up to 1 release)
2. Google === 7 years (up to 7 releases)
3. Samsung === 7 years (up to 7 releases)

Trust me that I understand how desperate you are to deny all facts about
Apple products that you're ignorant of & hence hate - but it's a fact.

Plus that includes *multiple* releases

Over the seven years, yes, but there's no mention of *concurrent* support for multiple releases. I'd be very, very surprised that they will support
six versions of the OS at the same thing.

Again, trust me that I understand why you're so desperate to shore up your crumbling foundation that you felt all along Apple support was the best.

Not the worst (which is what it is - when you look at they actual facts).

Yes. I understand your concern, but rest assured, for my free Samsung
Galaxy A32-5G for example (which is on 13 but was on 12 and 11 prior to
that), they have *always* fully supported multiple concurrent releases.

In addition, Microsoft has also clearly fully supported multiple concurrent releases (e.g., both Windows 11 and Windows 10 are fully supported today).

While your concern is valid, if we simply compare Microsoft to Apple for
the PC, it's patently obvious M$ full support is far better than Apple's.

(whereas Apple only fully supports a
single release

Incorrect. Over the course of the lifetime of phone it gets multiple fully supported releases. Typically 5 or 6.

Just like google/samsung's promise.

Hell, I'm a sensible logical reasonable well-educated intelligent person
Chris, so I get your point that while Appel clearly has never
simultaneously fully supported more than one release at a time - you're concerned that maybe the (longer) Google/Samsung promise is similar.

I agree with you that we need to see it in writing, since marketing is
rather clever at leading uneducated unintelligent people astray.

So let's leave that as an open question to be resolved in the future.

Plus Google has been updating *all Android phones* with Android 10 and
above over the Internet for the two dozen core operating system modules.

Meaningless. That isn't "full" support as you love to shout about.

Again, I am eminently logical such that I sympathize with your emotional concerns that fixing all known bugs monthly in dozens of core packages
found in billions of Android 10 devices around the world from many OEMs is
of no importance to you as an Apple user (because Apple doesn't do that).

But here's the thing when it comes to who has the worst OS support of all:
Q: Does Android at least fix all known bugs monthly in those packages?
A: Yes.

Q: Does Apple do anything similar?
A: No.

Still, trust me, I feel your desperation to ridicule the fact that Android
has been updating billions of devices monthly for all known bugs in over
two dozen core packages. I really do. It's palpable how desperate you are.

The reason is obvious: You had no idea Apple support was that bad.
Why were you so unaware that Apple has the worst support in the industry?

Because you are a herd animal.
You don't think for yourself.

You only believe what Apple told you.
And Apple never told you that.

That has no known EOL date so as far as we know it goes on forever

You're a very funny man. I hope you don't actually believe that.
<see my snipped urls for the facts >

Heh heh heh... we have very long threads on both the Usenet Android
newsgroup and on the XDA Developers web site where the general consensus is that Google has not stated any EOL date for the end of Project Mainline.

Even if they did, the fact all the code is donated to the open source community, by design, indicates even if there were an EOL date in the
future, then the open source community could continue ad infinitum.

Again, I understand why you lied above - because you're desperate to make
all facts I provide to you go away - but your brazen lies just point out
how desperate you are to avoid realizing why Apple has the worst full
hotfix operating system support in the industry.

I feel sorry for you, Chris.
And I mean that.

You're desperate to discount every fact that goes against your purely
religious belief system (which itself, was never based on any facts).

They have been forced to do this as their support of current and older
models has been woeful. Approx 2-3 years was what you could hope for. Even >>> for flagship models.

Bullshit. Android has been fully supporting over two dozen core operating
system modules since Android 10 - which is billions of Android phones.

Hahaha! "Fully supporting select services" is laughable.

Again, I feel sorry for you strange religious zealots because you don't
know how any operating systems update, let alone how Apple updates them.

The fact is that all Android 10+ phones, since 2019, have been updating
about two dozen core modules monthly for all bugs that Google knows about.

The only question you need to answer, instead of ridiculing that, is:
Q: Does Apple do this?
A: Yes or no?

In summary, when you understand how Microsoft, Google & Samsung update
their operating systems, you'll eventually realize this is a fact:
*Apple has the worst full operating system support in the industry*
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

On 2024-07-03, Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:

Jolly Roger wrote on 2 Jul 2024 15:30:39 GMT :

You claim because Apple fixed one bug in an older release, that they
fixed them all

I never said that. Yet another lie you can't back up.

I feel sorry for blah blah blah

No cite means you're lying as usual.
--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:

Chris wrote on Wed, 3 Jul 2024 11:23:09 -0000 (UTC) :

Simply answer this basic question,

You first. Answer my request above.

Heh... heh... heh... Now how did I know you would continue to brazenly lie just to get out of answering that simple yes-or-no question, Chris.

You lie so much you are even denying your own words, Chris.
<https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=13727&group=misc.phone.mobile.iphone#13727>
Chris: "there have been 14 major versions. Probably the most 2-3
recent are supported"
Chris: "iOS 15, 16 and 17 have received several updates this year.
IOS 15 supports back to the iphone 6 which is nearly
nine years old."

All of which is factually correct. Where is the lie?

Then badgolferman directly calls you out on your brazen lies, Chris.
<https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=13728&group=misc.phone.mobile.iphone#13728>
badgolferman: "Apple admits to only fully supporting the current
software version (17) with security updates.
How are you claiming 15,16, 17 are supported?"

To which you continue to brazenly lie to badgolferman's face, Chris.
<https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=13729&group=misc.phone.mobile.iphone#13729>
Chris: "You can see that two or three have been updated at the same
three times this year alone: 22nd Jan, 5th Mar, 22nd Mar.
Since the release of iOS 17, iOS 16 has received eight updates
and iOS 15 has received three."

Again, all factually correct. Where's the lie?

--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:

Chris wrote on Wed, 3 Jul 2024 11:23:08 -0000 (UTC) :

Bullshit. Google & Samsung have been five years published for a while.

Nope. Google published theirs in Oct/Nov last year and Samsung earlier this >> year.

I feel your frantic desperation to deny what the recently published statements from Apple/Google/Samsung promise (all of which came out at the same time due to EU requirements) - but you have to accept the facts.

Only recently did the EU force OEMs to state the promised full support lifetime of their operating systems, which is when they published this:
1. Apple === 5 years (up to 1 release)

Actually, using the same definition as Google/Samsung, that's up to 5
releases. Apple releases a new ios every year so five years of support will provide 5 supported releases.

2. Google === 7 years (up to 7 releases)
3. Samsung === 7 years (up to 7 releases)

Trust me that I understand how desperate you are to deny all facts about Apple products that you're ignorant of & hence hate - but it's a fact.

Plus that includes *multiple* releases

Over the seven years, yes, but there's no mention of *concurrent* support >> for multiple releases. I'd be very, very surprised that they will support
six versions of the OS at the same thing.

Again, trust me that I understand why you're so desperate to shore up your crumbling foundation that you felt all along Apple support was the best.

Not the worst (which is what it is - when you look at they actual facts).

Yes. I understand your concern, but rest assured, for my free Samsung
Galaxy A32-5G for example (which is on 13 but was on 12 and 11 prior to that), they have *always* fully supported multiple concurrent releases.

Prove it. If they're fully supported, by your definition, they should have received the same number of patches in the last nine months and covered the same CVEs.

In addition, Microsoft has also clearly fully supported multiple concurrent releases (e.g., both Windows 11 and Windows 10 are fully supported today).

While your concern is valid, if we simply compare Microsoft to Apple for
the PC, it's patently obvious M$ full support is far better than Apple's.

Really? How many global breaches that have affected many multibillion orgs
has windows been responsible for over the last 10 years?

Then compare with macOS.

I'll wait.

(whereas Apple only fully supports a
single release

Incorrect. Over the course of the lifetime of phone it gets multiple fully >> supported releases. Typically 5 or 6.

Just like google/samsung's promise.

Hell, I'm a sensible logical reasonable well-educated intelligent person Chris, so I get your point that while Appel clearly has never
simultaneously fully supported more than one release at a time - you're concerned that maybe the (longer) Google/Samsung promise is similar.

I agree with you that we need to see it in writing, since marketing is
rather clever at leading uneducated unintelligent people astray.

So let's leave that as an open question to be resolved in the future.

Plus Google has been updating *all Android phones* with Android 10 and
above over the Internet for the two dozen core operating system modules.

Meaningless. That isn't "full" support as you love to shout about.

Again, I am eminently logical such that I sympathize with your emotional concerns that fixing all known bugs monthly in dozens of core packages
found in billions of Android 10 devices around the world from many OEMs is
of no importance to you as an Apple user (because Apple doesn't do that).

The point you're missing is that if android only updates a select handful
of services and leaves the remainder unpatched and vulnerable then that's
not a fully supported OS. And is meaningless in terms of security.

--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

Chris wrote on Wed, 3 Jul 2024 22:28:13 -0000 (UTC) :

1. Apple === 5 years (up to 1 release)

Actually, using the same definition as Google/Samsung, that's up to 5 releases. Apple releases a new ios every year so five years of support will provide 5 supported releases.

I'm logical. Sensible. My belief systems are based on facts, not emotions.

I appreciate that, of all the religious zealots, you're at least trying to understand the differences between the substandard way Apple does things,
and the way every other operating system does their full hotfix support.

What you need to think about, and understand, is I already agreed with you
that we're absolutely positive that Microsoft *simultaneously* fully
supports multiple releases - which we *know* Apple does NOT do for macOS.

As for cellphone full hotfix support, again, we're absolutely positive that Apple has *never* simultaneously supported more than a single iOS release.

That's just a fact based on Apple's own description of their support Chris.

What I will grant you, and which I thank you for brining up the level of
detail that eludes most of the Apple religious zealots, is that it could be that Samsung/Google do not *simultaneously* support more than one release
at a time - although - my experience with the Galaxy A32-5G seems to show
that they do.

Still - I will grant you that we don't have it in writing that
Samsung/Google do NOT simultaneously support more than one of those 7
releases in 7 years, so I will take you up on the quest for more
information to ask the Android newsgroup for the data to nail the answer to that question down.

Unlike you Apple religious zealots, I don't need to defend Google to the
death, and, Lord knows, I think they stink - so rest assured, I will strive
to find out the correct answer to that question you are asking of me.

I posted a query to the Android newsgroup - but we need to wait a bit
before people answer the question with references, hopefully, Chris.
From: Andrew <andrew@spam.net>
Newsgroups: comp.mobile.android
Subject: Do Google/Samsung SIMULTANEOUSLY fully support more than one release at a time?
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2024 23:24:14 -0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <v64miu$2ofk$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>

*Do Google/Samsung SIMULTANEOUSLY fully support more than one release at a time?*
<https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=53965&group=comp.mobile.android#53965>

Yes. I understand your concern, but rest assured, for my free Samsung
Galaxy A32-5G for example (which is on 13 but was on 12 and 11 prior to
that), they have *always* fully supported multiple concurrent releases.

Prove it. If they're fully supported, by your definition, they should have received the same number of patches in the last nine months and covered the same CVEs.

When the link propagates to the Usenet search engines, I will give you the
link to the thread that asks directly of Android users your question.

What we KNOW is Apple says they do not do SIMULTANEOUS full support.
What we want to narrow down is whether Google/Samsung say that, or not.

Remember, I'm nothing like you fundamentalist zealots in that I don't care
what the answer is - I just care that I know the correct answer, Chris.

Let's see what the Android team comes up with by way of reference cites.
*Do Google/Samsung SIMULTANEOUSLY fully support more than one release at a time?*
<https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=53965&group=comp.mobile.android#53965>

In addition, Microsoft has also clearly fully supported multiple concurrent >> releases (e.g., both Windows 11 and Windows 10 are fully supported today). >>
While your concern is valid, if we simply compare Microsoft to Apple for
the PC, it's patently obvious M$ full support is far better than Apple's.

Really? How many global breaches that have affected many multibillion orgs has windows been responsible for over the last 10 years?
Then compare with macOS.
I'll wait.

For known exploits, the information is all here for you to peruse.
<https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog>

Again, I am eminently logical such that I sympathize with your emotional
concerns that fixing all known bugs monthly in dozens of core packages
found in billions of Android 10 devices around the world from many OEMs is >> of no importance to you as an Apple user (because Apple doesn't do that).

The point you're missing is that if android only updates a select handful
of services and leaves the remainder unpatched and vulnerable then that's
not a fully supported OS. And is meaningless in terms of security.

I understand why you're so emotionally desperate to claim that updating
dozens of core modules for billions of Android phones monthly is
"meaningless" in terms of security, we'll just have to disagree on that.

What you're saying is no different than saying that it's meaningless to
have supplemental insurance on your home or vehicle, simply because the supplemental insurance isn't complete. This is absurd, Chris.

Not only does Apple have nothing like this monthly supplemental updates to
over two dozen core modules, but Apple didn't even have the concept of a
hotfix patch until the iOS 16, Chris - which shows you how primitive the
Apple monolithic operating system updates are.

In summary, I get it that you consider supplemental insurance meaningless,
just as you consider if I gave you a bonus of $10K every month you'd
consider it meaningless because it's less than your standard salary... but
the fact you consider supplemental protection meaningless is more of a
function of your lack of understanding than anything else.

You're literally desperate to claim Apple does NOT have the worst operating system bugfix support in the industry - and - well - if you could prove
that, I'd be all ears - but saying it's "meaningless" if I gave you $10K
every month in ADDITION to your full salary, is simply an absurd statement.

You're desperate because you *hate* that the facts are what they are.

Still, let's see what comes of the question I just asked moments ago that
you asked me to nail down the answer to - which I feel is a sensibly
logical question to ask - where I am nothing but logical at all times.

*Do Google/Samsung SIMULTANEOUSLY fully support more than one release at a time?*
<https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=53965&group=comp.mobile.android#53965>
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

Jolly Roger wrote on 3 Jul 2024 18:39:58 GMT :

No cite means you're lying as usual.

And yet, I quoted your exact words, and the exact link to your exact words, complete with the URL and the message ID of your exact words, Jolly Roger.

Still... you're so embarrassed about Apple's hotfix support being the worst
in the industry that you can't bring yourself to answer this simple query.

Q: Does Apple publicly say that they only fully support a single release?
A: Yes or No
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

On 2024-07-03, Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:

Jolly Roger wrote on 3 Jul 2024 18:39:58 GMT :

No cite means you're lying as usual.

And yet, I quoted your exact words

Another lie.

and the exact link to your exact words

Another lie.

complete with the URL and the message ID of your exact words

Another lie.
--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:

Chris wrote on Wed, 3 Jul 2024 22:28:13 -0000 (UTC) :

Yes. I understand your concern, but rest assured, for my free Samsung
Galaxy A32-5G for example (which is on 13 but was on 12 and 11 prior to
that), they have *always* fully supported multiple concurrent releases.

Prove it. If they're fully supported, by your definition, they should have >> received the same number of patches in the last nine months and covered the >> same CVEs.

When the link propagates to the Usenet search engines, I will give you the link to the thread that asks directly of Android users your question.

Why don't you do your own analysis? Like I did with the Apple releases to
show that Apple indeed does actively support multiple releases. It's not
like you have anything else to do.

What we KNOW is Apple says they do not do SIMULTANEOUS full support.
What we want to narrow down is whether Google/Samsung say that, or not.

I've shown that Apple actively supports iOS 15 onwards. Actions speak
louder than words.

In addition, Microsoft has also clearly fully supported multiple concurrent >>> releases (e.g., both Windows 11 and Windows 10 are fully supported today). >>>
While your concern is valid, if we simply compare Microsoft to Apple for >>> the PC, it's patently obvious M$ full support is far better than Apple's. >>

Really? How many global breaches that have affected many multibillion orgs >> has windows been responsible for over the last 10 years?
Then compare with macOS.
I'll wait.

For known exploits, the information is all here for you to peruse.
<https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog>

That's not an answer. Take Wannacry it reportedly cost $4bn in damage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WannaCry_ransomware_attack

How much more damage has Microsoft's buggy software caused? Nothing of that scale has ever happened with Apple.

The point you're missing is that if android only updates a select handful
of services and leaves the remainder unpatched and vulnerable then that's
not a fully supported OS. And is meaningless in terms of security.

I understand why you're so emotionally desperate to claim that updating dozens of core modules for billions of Android phones monthly is "meaningless" in terms of security, we'll just have to disagree on that.

What does fully supported OS look like to you? (A) Only supporting some
"core services" or (B) actively patching all known vulnerabilities in the
OS?

You seem to be demanding (B) of Apple, but accepting (A) for Android.
That's hardly a fair comparison.

You're the one desperate to push a biased agenda based on your opinions
only.

When you actually look at the facts the differences are minimal. But you're
not really interested in facts only bias affirming opinions.
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

Chris wrote on Wed, 3 Jul 2024 18:43:20 -0000 (UTC) :

Again, all factually correct. Where's the lie?

Your lies lay in your abject fear of the answer to this simple query:

Q: Does Apple publish that they only fully support a single release?
A: Yes or No
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

Chris wrote on Thu, 4 Jul 2024 07:58:07 -0000 (UTC) :

When the link propagates to the Usenet search engines, I will give you the >> link to the thread that asks directly of Android users your question.

Why don't you do your own analysis? Like I did with the Apple releases to show that Apple indeed does actively support multiple releases. It's not
like you have anything else to do.

Only one word matters, Chris - which is the answer to this simply question:
Q: Does Apple publicly state that they only fully support a single release?
A: Yes or No

Chris - I get it that you *hate* that I'm the one who had to break it to
you that Apple was forced by security researchers to admit they have never
in their entire history ever provided full support to more than one
release.

You think I don't understand you strange religious zealots by now Chris?

1. All you religious zealots were blissfully ignorant of that basic fact.
2. Or, all you religious fundamentalists lied for years about that fact.
(Pick one.)

What we KNOW is Apple says they do not do SIMULTANEOUS full support.
What we want to narrow down is whether Google/Samsung say that, or not.

I've shown that Apple actively supports iOS 15 onwards. Actions speak
louder than words.

Do you think I don't understand how uneducated children like you act?

You're so completely ignorant of how operating systems are updated that you don't even realize every operating system vendor will fix a bug once in a
while in any release (particularly if that bug is so egregious as to garner
too much bad publicity).

If you don't think I didn't know you were desperate to weasel out of your
lies, rest assured I realize why you inserted the word "actively" above.

I don't know if you're pissing in your pants in fear, but I do know that
you're desperate to find a way to NOT answer this fundamental question:

Q: Does Apple publicly state that they only fully support a single release?
A: Yes or No

For known exploits, the information is all here for you to peruse.
<https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog>

That's not an answer. Take Wannacry it reportedly cost $4bn in damage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WannaCry_ransomware_attack

Chris, do you think I'm not aware of the whataboutism that all you
religious fundamentalist zealots employ to avoid answering the question?

Q: Does Apple publicly state that they only fully support a single release?
A: Yes or No

How much more damage has Microsoft's buggy software caused?
Nothing of that scale has ever happened with Apple.

Just wait until they count up the cost of ransomware inserted using this exploit in millions of iOS & mac apps over the long period of 10 years.
*Almost every Apple device vulnerable to CocoaPods supply chain attack*
<https://www.theregister.com/2024/07/02/cocoapods_vulns_supply_chain_potential/>

You probably don't even know about this vulnerability - which is classic because none of you religious zealots ever read what in the news.

The point you're missing is that if android only updates a select handful >>> of services and leaves the remainder unpatched and vulnerable then that's >>> not a fully supported OS. And is meaningless in terms of security.

I understand why you're so emotionally desperate to claim that updating
dozens of core modules for billions of Android phones monthly is
"meaningless" in terms of security, we'll just have to disagree on that.

What does fully supported OS look like to you?
"core services" or (B) actively patching all known vulnerabilities in the
OS?

You seem to be demanding (B) of Apple, but accepting (A) for Android.
That's hardly a fair comparison.

You're the one desperate to push a biased agenda based on your opinions
only.

When you actually look at the facts the differences are minimal. But you're not really interested in facts only bias affirming opinions.

Chris. I have had small children. My children have had small children.
My grandchildren just has babies. Stop acting like those small children.

Everyone who has any knowledge whatsoever of computers knows what it means.
I get it that you're desperate to find a flaw.
I get it that you are embarrassed that you were wrong about Apple.

I get it even that you're blissfully unaware that every operating system
vendor will fix a bug or few in older releases when they're really bad.

But fixing one bug and fixing every known bug are two different things.
Apple promises only one thing, Chris - and it's not what you claim it is.

If you can't answer this simple question, then I'm right about you zealots.
Q: Does Apple publicly state that they only fully support a single release?
A: Yes or No
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:

Chris wrote on Wed, 3 Jul 2024 18:43:20 -0000 (UTC) :

Again, all factually correct. Where's the lie?

Your lies lay in your abject fear

You've made unsubstantiated allegations that I lied which I categorically
deny and have shown to be factual.

Either be explicit regarding where I lied or retract your allegation and
STFU!
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

Chris wrote on Thu, 4 Jul 2024 15:56:51 -0000 (UTC) :

You've made unsubstantiated allegations that I lied which I categorically deny and have shown to be factual.

Let's stop this childish charade you Apple fundamentalists always play.

You keep weaseling about what "full" support means like a person with
cancer who keeps hoping that "malignant" doesn't mean what it means.

To qualify your lies, you've recently turned to using "active" support,
which means you actually do understand what "full" support means after all.

The fact you know the answer, and yet you keep desperately wiggling around trying to find a way out of your own brazen lies, is what you zealots do.

I've studied you strange Apple religious nutjobs, and every time you do the same thing which is you deny every fact you don't know about Apple, which wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't that you zealots know nothing about Apple.

I don't even care about Apple and I know more about how Apple updates
releases than any of you will ever know in your entire lifetime.

Which, after all, isn't saying much - because you can't even answer this:

Q: Does Apple publish that they only fully support a single release?
A: Yes or No
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

On 2024-07-04, Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:

Chris wrote on Thu, 4 Jul 2024 15:56:51 -0000 (UTC) :

You've made unsubstantiated allegations that I lied which I
categorically deny and have shown to be factual.

Let's stop this childish charade

Projection.
--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

Jolly Roger wrote on 4 Jul 2024 17:38:29 GMT :

You've made unsubstantiated allegations that I lied which I
categorically deny and have shown to be factual.

Let's stop this childish charade

Projection.

It's no longer shocking you religious zealots know NOTHING about Apple.
You ignorant uneducated zealot can't even answer this simple question.

Q: Does Apple publish that they only fully support a single release?
A: Yes or No
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:

Chris wrote on Thu, 4 Jul 2024 15:56:51 -0000 (UTC) :

You've made unsubstantiated allegations that I lied which I categorically
deny and have shown to be factual.

Let's stop

Making things up. You are incapable of finding holes in what people state,
so you pretend they said something else. Then snip and run when challenged.


--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:

Chris wrote on Thu, 4 Jul 2024 07:58:07 -0000 (UTC) :

When the link propagates to the Usenet search engines, I will give you the >>> link to the thread that asks directly of Android users your question.

Why don't you do your own analysis? Like I did with the Apple releases to
show that Apple indeed does actively support multiple releases. It's not
like you have anything else to do.

Only one word matters

What matters is that you make unsubstantiated claims based on third party information or your own guess work, but when you're challenged you have
nothing to fall back on.

You don't do your own analysis because you can't. Then attack when things
are outside your narrow sphere of consciousness.

What we KNOW is Apple says they do not do SIMULTANEOUS full support.
What we want to narrow down is whether Google/Samsung say that, or not.

I've shown that Apple actively supports iOS 15 onwards. Actions speak
louder than words.

Do you think I don't understand

Yup.

For known exploits, the information is all here for you to peruse.
<https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog>

That's not an answer. Take Wannacry it reportedly cost $4bn in damage:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WannaCry_ransomware_attack

Chris, do you think I'm not aware of the whataboutism that all you
religious fundamentalist zealots employ to avoid answering the question?

You're the one who brought MS into the conversation as an example of good software maintenance. I'm just highlighting what a stupid idea that was.

The point you're missing is that if android only updates a select handful >>>> of services and leaves the remainder unpatched and vulnerable then that's >>>> not a fully supported OS. And is meaningless in terms of security.

I understand why you're so emotionally desperate to claim that updating
dozens of core modules for billions of Android phones monthly is
"meaningless" in terms of security, we'll just have to disagree on that.

What does fully supported OS look like to you?
"core services" or (B) actively patching all known vulnerabilities in the
OS?

You seem to be demanding (B) of Apple, but accepting (A) for Android.
That's hardly a fair comparison.

You're the one desperate to push a biased agenda based on your opinions
only.

When you actually look at the facts the differences are minimal. But you're >> not really interested in facts only bias affirming opinions.

Chris. I have had small children. My children have had small children.
My grandchildren just has babies. Stop acting like those small children.

Like Joerge says, you're projecting.

Everyone who has any knowledge whatsoever of computers knows what it means.

Yet, you're not even prepared to explain it yourself either because you
don't understand it or are afraid of clarifying what you mean and having it torn apart.

I get it that you're desperate to find a flaw.
I get it that you are embarrassed that you were wrong about Apple.

I get it even that you're blissfully unaware that every operating system vendor will fix a bug or few in older releases when they're really bad.

But fixing one bug and fixing every known bug are two different things.

Correct. I'm not convinced you realise which model you're in favour of.

Apple promises only one thing, Chris - and it's not what you claim it is.

If you can't answer this simple question, then I'm right about you zealots. Q: Does Apple publicly state that they only fully support a single release? A: Yes or No

It depends.



--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

On 2024-07-04, Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:

Jolly Roger wrote on 4 Jul 2024 17:38:29 GMT :

You've made unsubstantiated allegations that I lied which I
categorically deny and have shown to be factual.

Let's stop this childish charade

Projection.

It's no longer shocking you religious zealots

More projection.
--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

Jolly Roger wrote on 5 Jul 2024 01:37:07 GMT :

It's no longer shocking you religious zealots

More projection.

And yet, you *still* can't bring yourself to answer the question, JR.

Q: Does Apple publish that they only fully support a single release?
A: Yes or No

Why are you so deathly afraid of the truth about Apple products anyway?
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

Chris wrote on Thu, 4 Jul 2024 20:11:30 -0000 (UTC) :

Making things up. You are incapable of finding holes in what people state,
so you pretend they said something else. Then snip and run when challenged.

Heh heh heh... C'mon Chris. Remember when you told me you had a PhD in the medical sciences and yet you ridiculed, like a child, common medical terms.

You think I am not aware how frantically desperate you are to find a hole
in Apple's own public statements that they only fully support 1 release.

You're like a cornered rat, frantically trying to find some way out of your
own desperate brazen lies, Chris. Your bloodshot eyes are frenetically
darting about for any avenue of escape from the truth that Apple has never fully supported more than one release at a time in its entire history.

Do you really think I'm not aware of your abject fear of this fact?

Your fear of facts is why you can't bring yourself to answer the question:

Q: Does Apple publish that they only fully support a single release?
A: Yes or No
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

Chris wrote on Thu, 4 Jul 2024 20:20:35 -0000 (UTC) :

Only one word matters

What matters is that you make unsubstantiated claims based on third party information or your own guess work, but when you're challenged you have nothing to fall back on.

Q: Does Apple publish that they only fully support a single release?
A: Yes or No

What is it about you ignorant uneducated low-IQ Apple fundamentalist
zealots that you are so deathly afraid of that simple factual question?
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:

Chris wrote on Thu, 4 Jul 2024 20:11:30 -0000 (UTC) :

Making things up. You are incapable of finding holes in what people state, >> so you pretend they said something else. Then snip and run when challenged.

Heh heh heh... C'mon Chris.

Noted that you're not denying the above and yet still haven't provided
support for your unsubstantiated allegation of lying. Don't judge people by your own standards. I have not and do not lie.

Any reasonable human would retract their statement.

Remember when you told me you had a PhD in the
medical sciences

I also challenged you to share your "degrees" and I would my PhD
certificate. As always you chickened out. You have no backbone.

and yet you ridiculed, like a child, common medical terms.

I ridicule you because you claim to be scientist. Lol. You are incapable of doing even the simplest analysis or research that isn't already written
down for you. I ask again. If google, as you claim, supports multiple
releases concurrently you should be able to evidence it. So go ahead.
Without asking others to do your work for you.

Without evidence all you have is opinion which is worthless against facts.
Such as Apple demonstrably supports iOS 15, 16 and 17.

You think I am not aware how frantically desperate you are to find a hole
in Apple's own public statements that they only fully support 1 release.

You're like a cornered rat,

Projection.

You constantly snip and run. Stand by your assertions like the adult you
claim to be. You quoted me as lying. Prove it!
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:

Chris wrote on Thu, 4 Jul 2024 20:20:35 -0000 (UTC) :

Only one word matters

What matters is that you make unsubstantiated claims based on third party
information or your own guess work, but when you're challenged you have
nothing to fall back on.

Q: Does Apple publish that they only fully support a single release?
A: Yes or No

What is it about you ignorant uneducated low-IQ Apple fundamentalist
zealots that you are so deathly afraid of that simple factual question?

If you had an argument you wouldn't need to resort to ad hominems. One can
only come to a single conclusion: you have no argument and you're full
shit.

--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

Chris wrote on Fri, 5 Jul 2024 10:39:10 -0000 (UTC) :

You constantly snip and run. Stand by your assertions like the adult you claim to be. You quoted me as lying. Prove it!

To prove/disprove your brazen lies, all you need to do is answer this:

Q: Does Apple publish that they only fully support a single release?
A: Yes or No

HINT: I know why you won't answer (you won't because you lied & answering
it would be an admission on your part that you lied about it prior).
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

Chris wrote on Fri, 5 Jul 2024 13:21:05 -0000 (UTC) :

One can only come to a single conclusion: you have no argument

You're frantically desperate to deflect from my argument, Chris.

Q: Does Apple publish that they only fully support a single release?
A: Yes or No
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:

Chris wrote on Fri, 5 Jul 2024 10:39:10 -0000 (UTC) :

You constantly snip and run. Stand by your assertions like the adult you
claim to be. You quoted me as lying. Prove it!

To prove/disprove your brazen lies, all you

You made the assertion. The onus is on you. Not me.
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

Chris wrote on Fri, 5 Jul 2024 23:30:30 -0000 (UTC) :

You constantly snip and run. Stand by your assertions like the adult you >>> claim to be. You quoted me as lying. Prove it!

To prove/disprove your brazen lies, all you

You made the assertion. The onus is on you. Not me.

The only thing that matters is that you are afraid to answer this question (which, in and of itself, shows you are embarrassed by your prior lies).

Q: Does Apple publicly state they fully support only one release at a time?
A: Yes or no.
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:

Chris wrote on Fri, 5 Jul 2024 23:30:30 -0000 (UTC) :

You constantly snip and run. Stand by your assertions like the adult you >>>> claim to be. You quoted me as lying. Prove it!

To prove/disprove your brazen lies, all you

You made the assertion. The onus is on you. Not me.

The only thing that matters is that

You back your claims. Last chance!

--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

Chris wrote on Sat, 6 Jul 2024 14:55:58 -0000 (UTC) :

You back your claims. Last chance!

How many times must I cite the same posts before you read them, Chris?

Either you're completely ignorant of Apple's OS update policy, or, you lied
as I have repeatedly quoted time and time again & again for you Chris.

Look here where Chris brazenly lies to badgolferman's face about it: <https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=13727&group=misc.phone.mobile.iphone#13727>
<https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=13728&group=misc.phone.mobile.iphone#13728>
<https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=13729&group=misc.phone.mobile.iphone#13729>

Since you lied above & since you won't answer this simple question, I'm
slowly beginning to realize you don't actually know the answer to the
query.

Q: Does Apple publicly state they fully support only one release at a time?
A: Yes or no.

Could it really be that you're too ignorant to even know the answer Chris?

Huh... I hadn't thought that you were too stupid to comprehend Apple's own words until now. SO maybe you didn't lie after all.

Maybe you're just too stupid to understand what Apple publicly said?
I don't know anymore.

But what is the only logical choice is either you lied, or, you told what
you thought was the truth but which you were too stupid to actually
comprehend.

Pick one.
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:

Chris wrote on Sat, 6 Jul 2024 14:55:58 -0000 (UTC) :

You back your claims. Last chance!

How many times must I cite the same posts before you read them, Chris?

Either you're completely ignorant of Apple's OS update policy, or, you lied as I have repeatedly quoted time and time again & again for you Chris.

Look here where Chris brazenly lies to badgolferman's face about it: <https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=13727&group=misc.phone.mobile.iphone#13727>
<https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=13728&group=misc.phone.mobile.iphone#13728>
<https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=13729&group=misc.phone.mobile.iphone#13729>

Since you lied above

Aaannndddd, we're now full circle. You're citing the exact same posts that
you still haven't evidenced where I lied. So I challenge you - again - to
show where exactly you think I lied. I dare you.

You won't because you can't.

--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

Chris wrote on Sat, 6 Jul 2024 23:26:12 -0000 (UTC) :

Aaannndddd, we're now full circle. You're citing the exact same posts that you still haven't evidenced where I lied. So I challenge you - again - to show where exactly you think I lied. I dare you.

You won't because you can't.

The fact is that I'm beginning to think you didn't lie, Chris.
You're just incredibly ignorant. To the point of being left of Mt Stupid.

You are supremely confident in your almost complete lack of knowledge.
So, maybe, after all, you didnt' lie Chris.

You truly do not know the answer to this extremely basic simple question:
Q: Does Apple publicly state they fully support only one release at a time?
A: Yes or no.

You, being left of Mount Stupid on the DK scale, are sure the answer is no.
And yet, the answer is Yes.

Apparently, you made brazen baseless claims out of pure ignorance.
Not malice.

I agree with you Chris.
You maybe didn't lie.
That means you're just shockingly ignorant and yet incredibly confident.

Which is the whole point of the graph of people left of Mount Stupid. <https://psychology.stackexchange.com/questions/17825/what-is-the-primary-source-of-the-mount-stupid-graphic>

People who are too stupid to know how stupid they are, are incredibly
confident in everything that they claim - which is probably you, Chris.
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

On 2024-07-06 16:52, Andrew wrote:

Chris wrote on Sat, 6 Jul 2024 23:26:12 -0000 (UTC) :

Aaannndddd, we're now full circle. You're citing the exact same posts that >> you still haven't evidenced where I lied. So I challenge you - again - to
show where exactly you think I lied. I dare you.

You won't because you can't.

The fact is that I'm beginning to think you didn't lie, Chris.
You're just incredibly ignorant. To the point of being left of Mt Stupid.

You're such a coward, Arlen.

--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

On 2024-07-06, Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:

Chris wrote on Sat, 6 Jul 2024 23:26:12 -0000 (UTC) :

Aaannndddd, we're now full circle. You're citing the exact same posts that >> you still haven't evidenced where I lied. So I challenge you - again - to
show where exactly you think I lied. I dare you.

You won't because you can't.

The fact is that I'm beginning to think you didn't lie, Chris.

Not a fact. You lose.
--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

Jolly Roger wrote on 7 Jul 2024 02:06:58 GMT :

The fact is that I'm beginning to think you didn't lie, Chris.

Not a fact. You lose.]

Holy shit! You didn't lie!
*You're just incredibly confident in your complete ignorance!*
<https://i.sstatic.net/NJkCp.png>

I've always said that there are always one of two reasons why you Apple religious fundamentalist zealots are so confident about being wrong.
<https://i.sstatic.net/wgoc9.jpg>

1. You either brazenly lie, or,
2. You really believe Apple fully supports more than 1 release at a time.
<https://i.sstatic.net/XgbX3.jpg>

Since Chris and you can't answer this simple question, even now...
Q: Does Apple publicly state they fully support only one release at a time?
A: Yes or no.

I'm beginning to realize fundamentalist zealots didn't lie after all.
*You actually _believe_ Apple simultaneously fully supports >1 release!*
<https://i.sstatic.net/QbnWs.png>

In other words, you're all to the left of Mount Stupid on the
Dunning-Kruger scale, which is people who know absolutely nothing but who
feel they know everything - which is all your strange religious zealots.]
<https://i.sstatic.net/wAbpc.jpg>
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

On 2024-07-07, Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:

Jolly Roger wrote on 7 Jul 2024 02:06:58 GMT :

The fact is that I'm beginning to think you didn't lie, Chris.

Not a fact. You lose.]

Holy shit! You didn't lie!

I never do. Here are FACTS you want everyone to ignore:

Open source vulnerabilities remain unpatched for decades <https://www.itweb.co.za/article/open-source-vulnerabilities-remain-unpatched-for-decades/wbrpO7gPwGdMDLZn>
---
A new report reveals an enormous number of identified open source vulnerabilities remain unpatched for 10 years and longer, often because organisations have no idea what open source code they are using.
.
.
.
With software developers routinely taking code from open source
repositories to embed in their company's products to speed up the
development process, saving time and money, manually tracking
components, their versions and their vulnerabilities is way beyond the capabilities of most organisations.

The report recommends all organisations invest in an automated solution
for identifying and patching known vulnerabilities. "You can't patch
software if you don't know you are using it," the authors point out.
---
--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

Jolly Roger wrote on 7 Jul 2024 03:23:56 GMT :

I never do. Here are FACTS you want everyone to ignore:

Open source vulnerabilities remain unpatched for decades <https://www.itweb.co.za/article/open-source-vulnerabilities-remain-unpatched-for-decades/wbrpO7gPwGdMDLZn>
---
A new report reveals an enormous number of identified open source vulnerabilities remain unpatched for 10 years and longer, often because organisations have no idea what open source code they are using.

The only facts we need to know are two undeniably salient facts, JR.

1. Apple touts that their ecosystem provides safety & security.
2. Yet Apple apparently has never even tested whether that claim is true.

In fact, it's obvious that Apple didn't even know how vulnerable their ecosystem was for millions of mac/iOS apps for an entire decade, JR!

With that in mind, your excuse is that Apple is incompetent at testing?

HINT: If security researchers can find this flaw, why then can't Apple?
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:

Chris wrote on Sat, 6 Jul 2024 23:26:12 -0000 (UTC) :

Aaannndddd, we're now full circle. You're citing the exact same posts that >> you still haven't evidenced where I lied. So I challenge you - again - to
show where exactly you think I lied. I dare you.

You won't because you can't.

The fact is that I'm beginning to think you didn't lie, Chris.

Wow. I think we have a breakthrough...

Apparently, you made brazen baseless claims out of pure ignorance.
Not malice.

...ah maybe not. Disappointing.

Go on, prove one claim I made that is baseless.

I agree with you Chris.
You maybe didn't lie.

Why the weasel words? You've always said you are happy to be corrected.
You're conceding I didn't lie which is great. No need for your cod
psychology.



--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

On 2024-07-07 08:44, Chris wrote:

Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:

I agree with you Chris.
You maybe didn't lie.

Why the weasel words?

It's an affront to good, honest, hardworking weasel's everywhere.
--
"It would be a measureless disaster if Russian barbarism overlaid
the culture and independence of the ancient States of Europe."
Winston Churchill

--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2