On Monday, April 10, 2017 at 5:59:56 AM UTC-4, Diesel wrote:
As I've told you before, despite your personal opinion disagreeing
with me, A security update IS an update.
Again, if you paid attention, I just told you that despite your claims,
I never said that a security update isn't an "update". I said that
support involves a lot more than just security updates, that Mozilla
has announced the end of Firefox for XP, that they have discontinued
all support for Firefox EXCEPT SECURITY UPDATES. And even that they
have only guaranteed for 5 more months. That anyone would argue that
makes for a "supported" browser, in the context of someone looking to
upgrade a system and run XP for the future, is just plain silly.
The five months isn't set
in stone, either.
Wow, that's reassuring. Kind of like saying the car gas gauge is on
empty, but the engine hasn't quite quit running yet.
According to Mozilla. A system being upgraded for
the future shouldn't be running XP OR Windows 7.
And they'be said you shouldn't be running Firefox on XP anymore,
that you should move to a SUPPORTED OS AND SUPPORTED BROWSER.
It's not going to
be much of a future for the individual,
Wow, you think?
unless, the machine is going
to be serving a dedicated purpose and the individual has no need for
later applications which will no longer support EITHER OS.
Again, not the OP's environment. And if you need a browser, well, you
need a browser, eh? Hence my point.
Despite your weak efforts to paint me as a liar, I haven't done
that...
Yes you have. You said that Firefox is continuing updates for Firefox
on XP beside just security updates. That is not true.
Nothing is wrong with me. I simply corrected your misleading
statement. Firefox IS still presently supported on Windows XP.
My statement was not misleading, but your BS advice sure is.
My advice as of today is quite sound, thanks. Firefox, despite your
claims, IS still, being updated on Windows XP. Just how many 'new'
features do you need in a ****ing web browser? It's job is to render
HTML for christs sake.
You can run a many years old browser and see the problems. I suspect
you're actually using an updated one, like most of us. But if you
really believe that, then feel free to recommend to the OP that he
stay with Firefox on XP for the future.
The context, again was a person planning for the future.
They shouldn't bother with XP or Windows 7, then.
Well, duh! And why not? Because IDK of any browser that is still
supported on XP, for one! And no, having just security updates for
just five months, when Mozilla is telling you they are offering no
new support besides that very limited support, doesn't qualify to a
reasonable person, in the context of this thread, as "supported"\
Good grief!
Unless, as I said,
the future is for a dedicated purpose. If it's going to become a
media server, that's a dedicated purpose. If it's going to be used
as a daily machine, they should move beyond Windows XP AND Windows
7.
Was the OP talking about a media server? Why must you wander in the
wilderness?
And you had to chime in, claiming that Firefox is still supported
on XP, when the only support left is security updates and even
that is only guaranteed for 5 months. Some future, some great
advice!
I 'chimed' in because your statement on the surface WAS NOT
ACCURATE.
It was 99% accurate and 100% accurate in the context of the OP's
situation. That's why you're desperately now talking about CNC,
media servers, and all that bulls ****.
A security update, IS infact, an update. I realize you're
trying to split hairs here, but, what I wrote does infact, stand.
Was the poster concerned about the time being? Idiot.
I don't know why you're resorting to personal attacks,
Because after a while, it's like talking to a child.
but, it
doesn't bother me in the least. I've been called much worse. If the
poster is upgrading for the 'future' and doesn't plan to use it for
a dedicated purpose, Windows XP and Windows 7 are a waste of his
time and his money.
Wow, you really think? But why would that be? You claim that Firefox
is still supported on XP, so he should still use it. Go figure.
That will be changing, soon, but,
it hasn't happened yet. My comment concerning the pointless in
upgrading to Windows 7 has far less to do with firefox than it
does wasting the OPS time in the sense that OS is nearing EOL,
too for end users. So if he wants to prepare for the future, his
choices are a bit limited. Go with win**** 10, or, switch to
linux.
No **** Sherlock, which is why I said IDK of any browser that is
currently supported on XP.
Your statement wasn't accurate. Your ignorance of the subject,
however, does fascinate me. Firefox 45.0.8 ESR is 'currently'
supported on XP. And it will remain so for atleast five more months.
You're lying again. All support EXCEPT FOR SECURITY UPDATES has
already ended, Mozilla has clearly stated that. Apparently in your
tin foil hat world, the only updating that is required is security
updates.
And for me and I think most reasonable
people, 5 months of security updates only, from folks that have
already discontinued ALL OTHER SUPPORT and are telling their
users of Firefox on XP to move, doesn't qualify as "supported".
But heh, feel free to climb on board a browser for 5 months.
We must have a very different understanding of reasonable people,
then. In my circle, reasonable people don't think security updates
aren't updates.
There you go lying again. I never said security updates are not
updates. Only that they are just one part of support and that they
are the very last part of support to go. When you get to that point
and with security updates only committed to for just 5 months, it's
not what reasonable people would call supported when they go looking
for a browser or similar software product.
They don't expect 'new' features are the only thing
that qualifies as an update. Infact, they realize bug fixes are also
valid, updates.
Bingo. And Mozilla has said no updates other than security updates.
So, unless that bug involves security, you're not getting an update
to fix it.
Further, they don't assume that security updates are
issued towards the end of the programs lifecycle, either. As,
reasonably speaking, that doesn't even make any sense. YMMV.
There you go lying again. I never said that security updates are
only issued near the end. I said that near the end of a browser or
similar's lifecycle, security updates are the very last part of support
that goes. And here we are, 5 months left.
If he wants to run modern
hardware, he should go with a modern OS. Such as Linux, not
Win**** 10.
Is that what you'd tell a customer? A client?
That depends entirely on what the machine in question is being
used for. If it's running a CNC or plasma cutter in his shop,
there's no reason to 'upgrade' the OS. It might infact,
disable the CNC machine and/or plasma cutter.
Was the OP running a CNC machine? Try to stick to the context
at least.
You asked me a question. The OP isn't a client of mine. You
didn't ask me specifically about the OP, you asked what I'd tell
a client or customer and I answered you.
Context matters. The OP isn't running a CNC. Does CNC need
an internet browser? WTF?
Indeed it does. See your question again, then. For proper context.
You specifically! asked me what I'd tell a client or customer. And I
told you. If you wanted me to tell you what I'd tell the OP, you
should have specified the OP, not a client or customer. Context,
right?
Yes, you have a hard time with context. The context of the thread is
the OP's problem, so the context of my question was a customer in a
similar position, not one with a CNC machine or a rocket ship.
Geeesh!
I find it remarkable that you (I really don't run across many
people who think as you do) that security updates are not
updates.
Lying again. I didn't say that security updates are not updates.
Excuse me? You inferred with your first damn reply that you didn't
consider 'security' updates to be updates.
You're continuing to lie. I didn't infer any such thing. I clearly
said that security updates are just one part of product SUPPORT.
I said when all you're left with is 5 months of security updates,
ie, no more bug fixes, no more no improvements to make sure it
stays compatible, that is not a *supported* browser. You seem to
think that security updates are all there is to supporting a
product. Probably because you've got a tin foil hat on when
it comes to "security".
You'd be quite mistaken. I've developed and supported software for
years. Issuing bugfixes as well as 'security' updates and new
features...I suppose you didn't check any of the urls I provided
when someone asked what I knew about the subject, albeit in a very
cheeky/smartass fashion.
I don't have a tinfoil hat on, thanks. I told you, I'm a former
BLACKHAT hacker. As a result, I just don't think like you do. I tend
to think outside the box. It's served me well. I've never been 0wned
by one of my peers or their work. OTH, I've made a pile of cash
fixing problems people like you suffer from as a result of their
work.
Firefox
ESR release is still getting security/non security updates for
the time being, AND, it still supports XP/Vista. ESR versions.
BS. Mozilla has clearly said there are no more updates other than
security updates. And even that is for just 5 months. Wow, some
"time being", for a poster upgrading a system for the future!
I provided a link to an older ESR series that had bugfixes AND
security updates applied. No new features mind you, but bugfixes AND
security updates. In case you missed it:
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/securi...firefoxesr45.8
They aren't all security updates as you can see.
Look at 45.3 and down:
45.3 was released in 2016, years past Windows XP eol.
Fixed in Firefox ESR 45.3
2016-80 Same-origin policy violation using local HTML file and saved shortcut file
2016-79 Use-after-free when applying SVG effects
2016-78 Type confusion in display transformation
2016-77 Buffer overflow in ClearKey Content Decryption Module (CDM) during video playback
2016-76 Scripts on marquee tag can execute in sandboxed iframes
2016-73 Use-after-free in service workers with nested sync events
2016-72 Use-after-free in DTLS during WebRTC session shutdown
2016-70 Use-after-free when using alt key and toplevel menus
2016-67 Stack underflow during 2D graphics rendering
2016-65 Cairo rendering crash due to memory allocation issue with FFmpeg 0.10
2016-64 Buffer overflow rendering SVG with bidirectional content
2016-63 Favicon network connection can persist when page is closed
2016-62 Miscellaneous memory safety hazards (rv:48.0 / rv:45.3)
And Mozilla has now said all that is over, that only security updates
will be issued. What part of that don't you understand?
Your statement wasn't correct on the face of it. You didn't
specify any qualifying aspects. You stated that you knew of no
browsers still being supported that run on XP, and, that's not
the case. Firefox is, for the time being.
No it;s not when Mozilla has already issued the final release for
XP, has stated that there will only be security updates going
forward and only guaranteed that for 5 months and told it's users
to move to a newer OS that is supported. Besides the fact that
Firefox is only issuing security updates for 5 months, you also
have the fact that MSFT is no longer doing security updates for XP
PERIOD! Quite remarkable for a tin foil hat guy to be advocating
that using Firefox on XP is cool and supported, when even the OS
itself is no longer receiving security updates from MSFT!
You're contradicting yourself again...For the next five months,
atleast, Firefox is still supported on Windows XP.
I didn't contradict a damn thing. Security updates are just the final,'
last part of support to go.
I didn't tell the
OP it was a good idea to remain with XP, I simply corrected your
erroneous comment concerning firefox no longer being updated on XP.
There you go lying again. I never said Firefox is no longer being
updated. I said Firefox is no longer supported on XP. Mozilla agrees,
they point out that it's impossible to continue to support a browser
on an OS that itself is receiving no security updates! They've told
users to move to a new OS, new browser that is supported. And again,
pay attention to the question the OP asked. And no, he isn't running
a CNC machine.