trader_4
Mon, 10
Apr 2017 16:21:57 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:
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.
Technically, it IS a supported browser, for the time being. And,
choosing to invest in new hardware to run XP if the machine isn't
running XP specific software for a dedicated purpose is a total
waste of money, time, and resources. The future doesn't include XP
for normal end users.
Wow, that's reassuring. Kind of like saying the car gas gauge is
on empty, but the engine hasn't quite quit running yet.
That's a **** poor comparison, but, I understand your need to provide it.
It's not going to be much of a future for the individual,
Wow, you think?
I didn't state otherwise...
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.
No, I haven't lied. I specifically stated:
Message-ID:
You must not know much about the subject, then. Firefox will still
support XP until 2017. And firefox isn't exactly a 'niche' browser.
In response to what you wrote:
Message-ID:
IDK of any browser company that is still doing updates of any
browsers for XP.
Which isn't accurate, atleast, not yet. Mozilla is still doing
updates for Firefox (a browser) that still runs on XP. Versions
prior to 45.0.8 were still getting minor bugfixes that were not
'security' only related. I already shared the url showing that. I
even pasted it:
Message-ID: XnsA7533DEC0297AHT1@EF5v6vvo88Gb99jhRCMLUhBs9ll7m D.42huA6plCP3M1.sr5O0fzFj25Fz4tqWE
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)
At this point, the discussion derailed in what you consider support
to be. And, I understand your need to do that, too. You were wrong
with your initial comment.
****, I just realized you're a google groups groupie. Why not use a
real usenet client and provider?
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.
I run the newest firefox on my linux machines, Yes. I run firefox
45.0.8 on this machine, though. This machine will soon be retired,
though. I've kept it for so long due to the sheer amount of software
and data present on it. Once I'm able to get all/nearly all of the
software up and running on the linux machines, this one will be
retired. It's long past due, anyhow. It's quite old. I built it
nearly fifteen years ago to rip and encode dvd/audio cds,
originally. I didn't go cheap then, either. It's a dual CPU (mated
processors, thank you) and for it's time, it rocked.. But, that time
has long since come and gone. I keep it because, as I said, I have
piles of software I use on it. Alot of that being programming
related things. Some of which will not 'convert' to linux and remain
practical.
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!
Your idea of a 'reasonable' person differs from mine.. and your
statement about not knowing of any browser still supported on XP, is
wrong. Firefox, IS. Your idea of supported obviously differs from
mine in this case, too.
Your efforts to redefine terms to suit you obviously make no
difference to me. Supported is Supported. Your red herring
arguments, aside.
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 have no trouble with context. You asked what I'd tell a client or
customer. I answered. I don't know the OP, I've never met them. So,
they couldn't possibly be a client or customer of mine. You didn't
specify 'a customer in a similar position', either. I've already
provided the OP my professional recommendation, several times now,
anyway. Don't waste your money on Windows XP or! Windows 7. I
suggested linux over Windows 10 due to the spyware issues present
(as in built in) to Windows 10 and you disagreed with that. Which is
your perogative. You clearly don't mind being spied on. I do.
I didn't lie about anything, I didn't try to BS anybody. Your
accusations towards me are not accurate. You just didn't appreciate
my correcting your inaccurate statement and exposing your lack of
knowledge on the subject. It's that simple. To your credit though,
I've never seen you claim to be an IT expert. If you did, I'd have
to call bull**** on that too.
[snip rest of your garbage].
You already lost when you resorted to lame personal attacks, false
accusations (lying? wtf? really?), and weak efforts to move goal
posts, anyway. I should have checked your headers closer before I
responded the first time. I have little use for google groupies.
Have a pleasent day, Trader.
--
I would like to apologize for not having offended you yet.
Please be patient. I will get to you shortly.