Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.mobile.android > #150619 > unrolled thread

The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems

Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android

Contents

  The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Marion <marionf@fact.com> - 2025-09-19 14:47 +0000
    Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2025-09-19 20:42 +0000
      Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-09-20 10:39 +0000
        Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-20 14:12 +0200
          Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2025-09-20 19:26 +0000
        Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2025-09-20 15:31 +0000
          Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-09-20 17:34 +0000
          Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-21 22:17 +0200
            Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-09-22 14:11 +0000
              Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-22 22:17 +0200
    Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-09-19 22:08 +0000
      Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Marion <marionf@fact.com> - 2025-09-20 06:38 +0000
        Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-09-20 22:36 +0000
          Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Marion <marionf@fact.com> - 2025-09-21 15:39 +0000
            Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-09-22 05:23 +0000
              Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Marion <marionf@fact.com> - 2025-09-22 15:58 +0000
                Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-09-22 21:40 +0000
                  Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Marion <marionf@fact.com> - 2025-09-23 00:09 +0000
                    Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-09-23 22:33 +0000
                      Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Marion <marionf@fact.com> - 2025-09-24 02:19 +0000
                        Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 06:25 +0000
                          Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Marion <marionf@fact.com> - 2025-09-24 16:55 +0000
                Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-09-23 10:12 +0200
                  Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Marion <marionf@fact.com> - 2025-09-23 16:12 +0000
                    Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-09-23 19:50 +0200
                      Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2025-09-24 08:15 +1200
                        Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> - 2025-09-23 16:01 -0500
                          Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Marion <marionf@fact.com> - 2025-09-24 02:14 +0000
                            Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-09-24 10:28 +0200
                              Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Marion <marionf@fact.com> - 2025-09-24 16:57 +0000
                              Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2025-09-25 21:29 +1000
                                Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> - 2025-09-25 07:34 -0400
                                  Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Marion <marionf@fact.com> - 2025-09-25 15:25 +0000
                                Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-09-25 14:26 +0200
                                  Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-09-25 14:37 +0200
                                    Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Marion <marionf@fact.com> - 2025-09-25 15:34 +0000
                                  Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-09-25 16:58 +0000
                                    Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-09-25 19:38 +0200
                                      Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-09-26 23:10 +0000
                                        Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Marion <marionf@fact.com> - 2025-09-28 19:56 +0000
                                          Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-09-29 06:49 +0000
                                            Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Marion <marionf@fact.com> - 2025-09-29 16:55 +0000
                                              Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2025-09-30 08:30 +0200
                                                Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Marion <marionf@fact.com> - 2025-09-30 17:20 +0000
                                              Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2025-09-30 20:50 +1000
                                                Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Smithwicks <user@nonsenseurl.com.invalid> - 2025-09-30 12:02 -0400
                                                  Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Marion <marionf@fact.com> - 2025-09-30 17:04 +0000
                                                  Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2025-10-01 08:36 +1300
                                                    Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Hank Rogers <Hank@nospam.invalid> - 2025-09-30 19:54 -0500
                                      Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Marion <marionf@fact.com> - 2025-09-26 16:26 +0000
                                        Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-09-26 19:44 +0000
                        Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-09-24 10:29 +0200
                          Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Marion <marionf@fact.com> - 2025-09-24 17:06 +0000
                            Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-09-24 20:05 +0200
                              Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2025-09-25 09:27 +1200
                                Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Hank Rogers <Hank@nospam.invalid> - 2025-09-24 18:41 -0500
                                  Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-09-25 08:59 +0200
                                    Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Marion <marionf@fact.com> - 2025-09-25 16:07 +0000
                                Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-09-25 09:11 +0200
                                  Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Marion <marionf@fact.com> - 2025-09-25 16:31 +0000
                                    Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-09-25 19:26 +0200
                                      Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Marion <marionf@fact.com> - 2025-09-26 16:30 +0000
                            Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 22:09 +0000
                              Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Marion <marionf@fact.com> - 2025-09-26 16:34 +0000
                                Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-09-26 23:10 +0000
                    Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-09-23 22:33 +0000
                      Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Marion <marionf@fact.com> - 2025-09-24 02:12 +0000
                        Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 06:19 +0000
                          Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Marion <marionf@fact.com> - 2025-09-24 17:05 +0000
    Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-09-20 11:00 +0200
      Re: Some claims about full support for the major consumer operating systems (was: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems) Tyrone <none@none.none> - 2025-09-20 12:48 +0000
        Re: Some claims about full support for the major consumer operating systems (was: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems) "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> - 2025-09-20 13:54 +0000
        Re: Some claims about full support for the major consumer operating systems (was: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems) "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-09-20 16:17 +0200
          Re: Some claims about full support for the major consumer operating systems (was: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems) Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2025-09-21 10:09 +1200
            Re: Some claims about full support for the major consumer operating systems Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-09-20 23:42 -0400
            Re: Some claims about full support for the major consumer operating systems (was: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems) "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-09-21 09:51 +0200
        Re: Some claims about full support for the major consumer operating systems "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-23 13:51 +0200
          Re: Some claims about full support for the major consumer operating systems Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2025-09-24 08:18 +1200
            Re: Some claims about full support for the major consumer operating systems Hank Rogers <Hank@nospam.invalid> - 2025-09-23 17:38 -0500
              Re: Some claims about full support for the major consumer operating systems Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-09-24 08:39 -0400
          Re: Some claims about full support for the major consumer operating systems Tyrone <none@none.none> - 2025-09-23 21:01 +0000
            Re: Some claims about full support for the major consumer operating systems "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-25 03:05 +0200
      Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2025-09-22 16:42 -0700
        Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-09-23 09:09 +0200
          Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-09-23 05:00 -0400
            Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-09-23 11:29 +0200
          Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2025-09-24 08:10 -0700
            Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-09-24 17:45 +0200
              Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2025-09-24 23:27 -0700
                Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-09-25 08:57 +0200
                  Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2025-09-25 09:19 -0700
                    Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-09-25 19:21 +0200
                Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-09-25 04:40 -0400
    Re: Hey Troll Boy Arlen you lying piece of shit... (was: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems) Tyrone <none@none.none> - 2025-09-21 05:28 +0000
      Re: Hey Troll Boy Arlen you lying piece of shit... (was: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems) Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2025-09-21 17:40 +1200
        Re: Hey Troll Boy Arlen you lying piece of shit... Tyrone <none@none.none> - 2025-09-21 13:50 +0000
      Re: Hey Troll Boy Arlen you lying piece of shit... Tyrone <none@none.none> - 2025-09-21 14:56 +0000
        Re: Hey Troll Boy Arlen you lying piece of shit... Marion <marionf@fact.com> - 2025-09-21 15:08 +0000
    Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Marion <marionf@fact.com> - 2025-09-26 16:39 +0000

Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5  Next page →

#150724

Arlen,

> You can cite a fact to Apple trolls a thousand times & they deny it 
> exists.

That sounds like someone else I know ...

> They even claim you never gave them that cite before denying it exists.

And you ofcourse prove them wrong by telling in which post you did it and 
quote the text you used ?

Thought not.

Kiddo, get your face away from that mirror.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#150756

My argument is that Apple support is the *worst* in the industry.

(Although when it comes to exploits, even Apple is surpassed by one OS!)
<https://blog.ostorlab.co/static/img/2024_01_10_Known_exploitable_vulnerabilities/distribution_of_RE_NRE_CVES.png>

Given the trolls (who know nothing about the topic at hand) only spend
seconds to respond (because the trolls can't add any on-topic value) 
these are on-topic facts about the TRUTH of operating system support.

4. *Large portions of the iOS code have never once been through testing!*

Google Project Zero - A very deep dive into iOS Exploit chains found in the
wild
<https://googleprojectzero.blogspot.com/2019/08/a-very-deep-dive-into-ios-exploit.html>
 "We'll see cases of code which seems to have never worked, code that
likely skipped QA or likely had little testing or review before being
shipped to users."
This is explicit acknowledgement that significant portions of iOS shipped
with untested or nonfunctional code.

Google Threat Analysis Group - State-backed attackers and commercial
surveillance vendors repeatedly use the same exploits
<https://blog.google/threat-analysis-group/state-backed-attackers-and-commercial-surveillance-vendors-repeatedly-use-the-same-exploits/>
 "In each iteration of the watering hole campaigns, the attackers used
exploits that were identical or strikingly similar to exploits previously
used by commercial surveillance vendors."

Project Zero - JITSploitation: Three zero-days and one cached JIT spray
 <https://googleprojectzero.blogspot.com/2020/09/jitsploitation-three.html>
"This three-part series highlights the technical challenges involved in
finding and exploiting JavaScript engine vulnerabilities in modern web
browsers and evaluates current exploit mitigation technologies."
This shows Apple's mitigations weren┤ catching known exploit patterns.

Vice - Google Project Zero bugs used to hack iPhones and Android phones
<https://www.vice.com/en/article/google-project-zero-bugs-used-to-hack-iphones-and-android-phones>
"Researchers at Google's Project Zero uncovered vulnerabilities in WebKit
and JIT engines that were quietly patched by Apple and Google after being
exploited in the wild."
The need for third-party researchers to find and exploit these flaws
indicates they were not caught by Apple's in-house testing.

In summary, above are FACTS which the trolls can't understand nor dispute.
But those facts play into my assessment *iOS is the worst supported OS*.

Keeping on topic and not responding to the trolls who can only subtract
value since they know nothing about the topic, here are more reliable
well-cited fact about Apple's astoundingly atrocious QA process.
 <https://blog.ostorlab.co/known_exploitable_vulnerabilities_catching_them_all.html>
 <https://www.cybersecurity-insiders.com/vulnerability-comparison-android-vs-ios-in-the-face-of-cyber-attacks/>

While Windows and iOS take the cake for having far too many bugs, 
is there even *one* way that iOS is better supported than the others?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#150705

Marion <marionf@fact.com> wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>> You never respond to those, of course: deny, deflect, ignore.
> 
> Just responding to your crap, wastes my valuable time & that of others.

That works make sense if you didn't respond. Except you *do* respond to
almost every post. You just don't respond to the *content* of the posts.
Clearly your time is even less valuable then you think. 

Just like you think Amazon values your time by giving you free shit except
it's the vendor that absorbs that cost. So you're explicitly giving away
your "valuable" time - for free - to one of the richest companies in the
world. For what? Some "good boy" pats on the head. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#150761

Hi Chris,

Keeping on topic, what do you make of this graph from the CISA data?
 <https://blog.ostorlab.co/static/img/2024_01_10_Known_exploitable_vulnerabilities/distribution_of_RE_NRE_CVES.png>

REFERENCE:
 *Ostorlab Known Exploitable Vulnerabilities: Catching them all*
 <https://blog.ostorlab.co/known_exploitable_vulnerabilities_catching_them_all.html>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#150765

Marion <marionf@fact.com> wrote:
> Hi Chris,
> 
> Keeping on topic, 

How's this on topic? The thread is about support, now you're grinding your
vulnerabilities axe. 

> what do you make of this graph from the CISA data?
>  <https://blog.ostorlab.co/static/img/2024_01_10_Known_exploitable_vulnerabilities/distribution_of_RE_NRE_CVES.png>

It's a very basic graph which tells you nothing about OS vs applications
nor trends over time. It's not very useful information if the majority are
from many years ago.  What we really want to know is if manufacturers are
doing better than the in past. 

That's on top of the fact that CISA is a very selective resource and not a
fair representation of the overall vulnerability landscape. This means it
can't be used to compare between manufacturers. 

> REFERENCE:
>  *Ostorlab Known Exploitable Vulnerabilities: Catching them all*
>  <https://blog.ostorlab.co/known_exploitable_vulnerabilities_catching_them_all.html>
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#150682

Marion <marionf@fact.com> wrote:
> R.Wieser wrote:
>>>>> Notice my assessments are based on documented facts
>> 
>> You have a history of claiming that and similar, but always "forgetting" to 
>> provide support for it.  Your assurance here is therefore worth absolutily 
>> nothing.
> 
> Name a single fact I stated in the post to Chris you feel is wrong.

What is even the point? You never, ever accept anything. It's always deny,
deflect, ignore. Always. 

> Do you even understand the difference (between fact & assessment of fact)?
> 
> This is a fact:
>  iOS has had about 1-1/2 times the known exploits as had Android.

Yet again you're wrong. That's an assertion or claim. Not a fact. 

> This is a credible cite for that fact:
>  <https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog>

No it isn't. Simply because you can't count and have never proven your
assertion. Which ultimately makes it a lie. 

> Note that it takes no brains to claim that cite doesn't say that fact, but
> it takes actual intelligence to pull the information out of that cite.

Which you lack. As you've never shown your workings. 

Plus the fact that you don't accept that CISA is not a source of absolute
truth and therefore cannot be used to make absolute assertions. 

An intelligent person would accept this and move on. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#150684

Chris wrote:
>> Name a single fact I stated in the post to Chris you feel is wrong.
> 
> What is even the point? You never, ever accept anything. It's always deny,
> deflect, ignore. Always. 

You're the one who said every single fact was wrong, Chris. Not me. 
Yet you can't name even one fact I had posted in this thread that's wrong.

It's what you Apple trolls do, Chris.

To you Apple trolls, every fact you are unaware of, to you, must be wrong.
Which is every fact.

> 
>> Do you even understand the difference (between fact & assessment of fact)?
>> 
>> This is a fact:
>>  iOS has had about 1-1/2 times the known exploits as had Android.
> 
> Yet again you're wrong. That's an assertion or claim. Not a fact. 

It's a fact Chris. It's right there in your face, Chris.
 <https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog>

It's basic arithmetic math, Chris.

The fact you claim all math must be wrong that you don't know, simply means
you're an Apple troll who can't even count the number of exploits listed.

> 
>> This is a credible cite for that fact:
>>  <https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog>
> 
> No it isn't. Simply because you can't count and have never proven your
> assertion. Which ultimately makes it a lie. 

Heh heh heh... I've done the math Chris. You can't do the math.
So you claim simple arithmetic math must be wrong. 
It's what you Apple trolls do.

Do you want extra credit, Chris?
Q: Why doesn't the 1-1/2 iOS:Android ratio change from year to year, Chris?
A: ?

Note that when you can answer *that* question, it will show for the first
time in your entire life that you actually understood what adults can.

>> Note that it takes no brains to claim that cite doesn't say that fact, but
>> it takes actual intelligence to pull the information out of that cite.
> 
> Which you lack. As you've never shown your workings. 
> 
> Plus the fact that you don't accept that CISA is not a source of absolute
> truth and therefore cannot be used to make absolute assertions. 
> 
> An intelligent person would accept this and move on.

Chris, 

Prove me wrong, Chris. Do the math. 
Heh heh heh... you can't. You don't know how to add up numbers, Chris.

Heh heh heh... since you can't do the math, you claim the math is wrong.
Because you can't do it yourself.

I've studied you strange Apple trolls for years, just as Dunning & Kruger
studied the strange people who lack basic cognitive skills.

I already knew, years ago, when I first taught you about the CISA report,
that you would outright deny every single thing reported in that report.

Why?
Because it shows the iOS exploits to be far more than Android exploits.

That's just a fact, Chris.
That you can't comprehend that fact doesn't make that fact not a fact.

Do the math before you respond since all you're doing is proving my point.
Apple trolls deny all facts because they can't stand those facts exist.

It's what Apple trolls do.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#150688

Marion <marionf@fact.com> wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>>> Name a single fact I stated in the post to Chris you feel is wrong.
>> 
>> What is even the point? You never, ever accept anything. It's always deny,
>> deflect, ignore. Always. 
> 
> You're the one who said every single fact was wrong, Chris. Not me. 
> Yet you can't name even one fact I had posted in this thread that's wrong.

See? You're making my point perfectly. 

I named two "facts" that are wrong. IN THIS VERY THREAD. 

>>> This is a fact:
>>> iOS has had about 1-1/2 times the known exploits as had Android.
>> 
>> Yet again you're wrong. That's an assertion or claim. Not a fact. 
> 
> It's a fact Chris. It's right there in your face, Chris.
>  <https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog>
> 
> It's basic arithmetic math, Chris.

Prove it. A url is neither arithmetic nor a fact. 

> The fact you claim all math must be wrong that you don't know, simply means
> you're an Apple troll who can't even count the number of exploits listed.

I proved *your maths* to be wrong, here: <10aitvd$b7pc$2@dont-email.me>

You never respond to those, of course: deny, deflect, ignore. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#150700

Chris wrote:
> You never respond to those, of course: deny, deflect, ignore.

Just responding to your crap, wastes my valuable time & that of others.
You Apple trolls claim the earth is flat.

Why?
Because Apple marketing told you that the earth is flat.

There is no amount of adult discourse that can possibly occur with you.
Because you insist the earth is flat out of nothing but religious belief.

If an adult even tries to reason with you that the earth is not flat, all
you'll do is never click on the links and simply say all facts are wrong.

It's what you rather strange Apple trolls do, Chris. 
Every one of you Apple trolls do this, Chris.
 Alan Baker
 Alan Browne
 Haemactylus
 -hh
 JF Mezei
 Jolly Roger
 Lewis
 nospam
 Tom Elam
 Tyrone
 Your Name

To be clear, a few of the non-Apple trolls do what you Apple trolls do.
 Kerr-Mudd, John
 MikeS
 Rudy Wieser
 sticks

And a few others I don't recall offhand.

All you strange trolls are similar in that none of you ever add any value.
You only subtract value from Usenet.

Just responding to your crap, wastes my valuable time & that of others.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#150627

Arlen,

> Windows 10 Full Support Timeline
> Release date: 29 July 2015
> End of support date: 14 October 2025
> Duration: Approximately 10 years of full security support for
> all known vulnerabilities

Lets add some more facts :

Windows hardware average lifespan : 5 years (with some major upgrades upto 
8).
Is Win 10 upgradable ?  No.  Win 11 *refuses* to be installed on Win 10 
hardware.  You're stuck with it until you buy new hardware (A repeated 
issue, see the "windows 8 ready" debacle)

Smartphone hardware average lifespan : less than three years.
Is the Android version upgradable ?  Yes, and it happens automatically.

Also:

In the life-cycle of win 10 (2015 to 2021, so six years) Android had 10 
versions, meaning that the life-cycle of android was 7.2 months on average.

Where Windows has a support duration of 1.6 times its life-cycle, Android 
phones have a support of *5 times* its life-cycle.

Or, in other words : if Android would have the same life-cycle as Win 10 
does its support duration would be 30 years.

So, both Android and Windows support covers their hardwares average 
lifespan.  Though on smartphones the OS version is regulary upgraded, and 
that version than again gets the full three years of support - even when the 
hardware won't be able to do another version upgrade.   iow, the /full/ 
support duration can span 6 years. Thats *ten times* its life-cycle. 
Windows ?  A meager one-and-a-half.

Even in absolute numbers Android wins : where Windows has just four years 
after its life-cycle ends, Android gives five-point-three years after its 
initial versions life-cycle ends.

Also:

Number of bungled-up updates of Windows ?  Quite a number, with the last one 
just a month or so ago.
Number of bungled-up updates of Android ?  Very few.

Number of Windows OS (not apps) related flaws : many.
Number of Android OS (not apps) related flaws : Very few, if any.

A  windows update/upgrade forces a reboot ?  Yes.
An Android update/upgrade forces a reboot ?  No.

I would say that, between Windows and Android, Android wins hands-down.


... though I still dislike Android, as it(s owner) does not provide an open 
programming environment. :-(

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#150630 — Re: Some claims about full support for the major consumer operating systems (was: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems)

On Sep 20, 2025 at 5:00:40 AM EDT, ""R.Wieser"" <address@is.invalid> wrote:

> Arlen,
> 
>> Windows 10 Full Support Timeline
>> Release date: 29 July 2015
>> End of support date: 14 October 2025
>> Duration: Approximately 10 years of full security support for
>> all known vulnerabilities
> 
> Lets add some more facts :
> 
> Windows hardware average lifespan : 5 years (with some major upgrades upto
> 8).
> Is Win 10 upgradable ?  No.  Win 11 *refuses* to be installed on Win 10
> hardware.  You're stuck with it until you buy new hardware (A repeated
> issue, see the "windows 8 ready" debacle)

"Facts" indeed.

First, Windows is not a "consumer operating system". The vast majority of
users are businesses.  Yes, there are small number of consumers using it, but
it is not a consumer product.  

Second, Windows 11 will absolutely install on "Windows 10 hardware".  The
issue is the *age* of the hardware. Not the fact that it is curently running
Windows 10. A more accurate statement is that Windows 11 will not normally
install on Windows 8 era hardware.  But, see below.

Third, Windows 11 can easily be installed on "unsupported" hardware. I have
done it many times. It is not a "hack", it is done using Microsoft's own,
documented settings that most people don't know about.  The resulting install
works fine and receives updates. 

I have Windows 11 running on Windows 8 era (from 2013) tablets and a 4th gen
i7 laptop that is 10 years old. Including Intel Atom CPUs with 4GB RAM.  Yes,
that one runs slow. 

None have TPM 2.0 and Secure boot. But those are only checked during the
install. Neither are needed to actually RUN Windows 11.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#150631 — Re: Some claims about full support for the major consumer operating systems (was: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems)

Tyrone wrote:

>"Facts" indeed.
>
>First, Windows is not a "consumer operating system". The vast
>majority of users are businesses.  Yes, there are small number of
>consumers using it, but it is not a consumer product.  

I disagree with this statement.  Do you have data to back up this
assertion?

Windows has far more consumers using it on their personal
desktop/laptop systems than any other operating system does.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#150632 — Re: Some claims about full support for the major consumer operating systems (was: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems)

Tyrone,

> First, Windows is not a "consumer operating system". The vast majority of 
> users are businesses.  Yes, there are small number of consumers using
> it, but it is not a consumer product.

Just as I always ask Arlen (and he /always/ refuses), do quote where I made 
any claim in that direction.

If you can't (and I'm /pretty sure/ you can't) your above "information" will 
be regarded as an attempt to (at least) confuse the matter.

> Second, Windows 11 will absolutely install on "Windows 10 hardware".  The 
> issue is the *age* of the hardware.

Nope ...

> None have TPM 2.0 and Secure boot.

... but that first one will.

> Not the fact that it is curently running Windows 10.

I'm afraid you are the only one here who has claimed such a thing.  But if 
you think I did than do quote it.  Good luck.

> Third, Windows 11 can easily be installed on "unsupported" hardware. It is 
> not a "hack", it is done using Microsoft's own, documented settings that 
> most people don't know about.

iow, "most people" won't be able to upgrade their Win 10 'puters.  Thanks 
for the confirmation. :-)

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#150636 — Re: Some claims about full support for the major consumer operating systems (was: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems)

On 2025-09-20 14:17:19 +0000, R.Wieser said:

> Tyrone,
> 
>> First, Windows is not a "consumer operating system". The vast majority 
>> of users are businesses.  Yes, there are small number of consumers using
>> it, but it is not a consumer product.
> 
> Just as I always ask Arlen (and he /always/ refuses), do quote where I 
> made any claim in that direction.
> 
> If you can't (and I'm /pretty sure/ you can't) your above "information" 
> will be regarded as an attempt to (at least) confuse the matter.

I don't think there is any such breakdown of numbers anywhere. It's 
also confused by the differing versions of Windows (Home, Pro, 
Education, Enterprise). Also some home users use Pro and some 
businesses use Home.



>> Second, Windows 11 will absolutely install on "Windows 10 hardware".  
>> The issue is the *age* of the hardware.
> 
> Nope ...

Yes ... but it depends on a few factors.

    "But only Windows 10 PCs that are running the most current
     version of Windows 10 and meet the minimum hardware
     specifications will be able to upgrade."
    <https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/get-windows-11>




>> None have TPM 2.0 and Secure boot.
> 
> ... but that first one will.
> 
>> Not the fact that it is curently running Windows 10.
> 
> I'm afraid you are the only one here who has claimed such a thing.  But 
> if you think I did than do quote it.  Good luck.
> 
>> Third, Windows 11 can easily be installed on "unsupported" hardware. It 
>> is not a "hack", it is done using Microsoft's own, documented settings 
>> that most people don't know about.
> 
> iow, "most people" won't be able to upgrade their Win 10 'puters.  
> Thanks for the confirmation. :-)
> 
> Regards,
> Rudy Wieser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#150638 — Re: Some claims about full support for the major consumer operating systems

On Sat, 9/20/2025 6:09 PM, Your Name wrote:
> On 2025-09-20 14:17:19 +0000, R.Wieser said:
> 
>> Tyrone,
>>
>>> First, Windows is not a "consumer operating system". The vast majority of users are businesses.  Yes, there are small number of consumers using
>>> it, but it is not a consumer product.
>>
>> Just as I always ask Arlen (and he /always/ refuses), do quote where I made any claim in that direction.
>>
>> If you can't (and I'm /pretty sure/ you can't) your above "information" will be regarded as an attempt to (at least) confuse the matter.
> 
> I don't think there is any such breakdown of numbers anywhere. It's also confused by the differing versions of Windows (Home, Pro, Education, Enterprise). Also some home users use Pro and some businesses use Home.

Question: The Windows Operating System has stock keeping units of Home, Pro, Education, Enterprise.
          What percentage number does each SKU have, out of the total percentage of Windows installations ?

******* CoPilot AI Answer *******

Microsoft doesn’t publicly release exact breakdowns of Windows installations by SKU
(Home, Pro, Education, Enterprise), but based on industry estimates and telemetry data
from analytics firms, we can sketch a rough picture of their distribution:

### Estimated Global Distribution of Windows SKUs

| **SKU**        | **Estimated Share** | **Typical Use Case**                          |
|----------------|---------------------|-----------------------------------------------|
| **Home**       | ~60–65%             | Consumer PCs, laptops sold at retail          |
| **Pro**        | ~25–30%             | Business users, power users, SMBs             |
| **Enterprise** | ~5–10%              | Large organizations via volume licensing      |
| **Education**  | <2%                 | Schools, universities, academic institutions  |

### Notes:
- **Windows Home** dominates because it's pre-installed on most consumer devices.
- **Windows Pro** is popular among professionals and small businesses due to added features like BitLocker and Remote Desktop.
- **Enterprise** is only available through volume licensing, so its share is smaller but concentrated in large organizations.
- **Education** is niche and typically deployed in academic environments, often through special licensing agreements.

These figures can vary by region and sector. For example, in enterprise-heavy environments like government or finance,
the Enterprise SKU might be more prevalent. Similarly, Education SKUs are more common in school districts or universities.

******* End: CoPilot AI Answer *******

It is possible, to query a machine and have the machine pull numbers from it ass :-)
Humans no longer have to do that. It's like the Magical 8Ball, except it doesn't
have an "I don't know" tile on the face.

Maybe I should ask the machine, whether it is the Year Of The Linux Desktop ? :-)

Or, I could ask the machine "How would YOU install Linux on four hundred million computers ???".

   Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#150641 — Re: Some claims about full support for the major consumer operating systems (was: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems)

Your Name,

>>> First, Windows is not a "consumer operating system". The vast majority 
>>> of users are businesses.  Yes, there are small number of consumers using 
>>> it, but it is not a consumer product.
...
> I don't think there is any such breakdown of numbers anywhere.

Its not the numbers, its that he thinks that a puter is only ment for 
commercial usage.   As if the gazillion households that have Windows 'puters 
and do lots of non-commercial stuff with them, including gaming, do not 
exist.   Its a denial of reality.

>>> Second, Windows 11 will absolutely install on "Windows 10 hardware". The 
>>> issue is the *age* of the hardware.
>>
>> Nope ...
>
> Yes ... but it depends on a few factors.
>
>    "But only Windows 10 PCs that are running the most current
>     version of Windows 10 *and meet the minimum hardware*
>     specifications will be able to upgrade."

(bolding mine)

That sounds like a "duh" to me.  A sales department blurb, regardless of if 
such cases actually exist.

Than again, I still remember the "Windows 8 ready" debacle, so I may be a
bit ... cautious.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#150668 — Re: Some claims about full support for the major consumer operating systems

On 2025-09-20 14:48, Tyrone wrote:

...

> None have TPM 2.0 and Secure boot. But those are only checked during the
> install. Neither are needed to actually RUN Windows 11.

Hum.

I have a W11 virtual machine on a vmware host running on Linux. One day 
I needed to delete some files. Windows refused. Ok, boot Linux from a CD 
and do it. But Linux CD would not boot, because failed key. Fine, 
disable secure boot, then boot Linux CD, then delete the damn file, 
finally reboot Windows.

Hey, this is funny, Windows has lost internet access. What...? Did I 
delete something crucial? No, W11 decided that no secure boot implies 
networking is disabled, not secure.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#150675 — Re: Some claims about full support for the major consumer operating systems

On 2025-09-23 11:51:43 +0000, Carlos E.R. said:
> On 2025-09-20 14:48, Tyrone wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
>> None have TPM 2.0 and Secure boot. But those are only checked during the
>> install. Neither are needed to actually RUN Windows 11.
> 
> Hum.
> 
> I have a W11 virtual machine on a vmware host running on Linux. One day 
> I needed to delete some files. Windows refused. Ok, boot Linux from a 
> CD and do it. But Linux CD would not boot, because failed key. Fine, 
> disable secure boot, then boot Linux CD, then delete the damn file, 
> finally reboot Windows.
> 
> Hey, this is funny, Windows has lost internet access. What...? Did I 
> delete something crucial? No, W11 decided that no secure boot implies 
> networking is disabled, not secure.

Windoze is cheap crap, it has always been cheap crap, and it will 
always be cheap crap ... 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#150683 — Re: Some claims about full support for the major consumer operating systems

Your Name wrote on 9/23/2025 3:18 PM:
> On 2025-09-23 11:51:43 +0000, Carlos E.R. said:
>> On 2025-09-20 14:48, Tyrone wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> None have TPM 2.0 and Secure boot. But those are only checked during the
>>> install. Neither are needed to actually RUN Windows 11.
>>
>> Hum.
>>
>> I have a W11 virtual machine on a vmware host running on Linux. One 
>> day I needed to delete some files. Windows refused. Ok, boot Linux 
>> from a CD and do it. But Linux CD would not boot, because failed key. 
>> Fine, disable secure boot, then boot Linux CD, then delete the damn 
>> file, finally reboot Windows.
>>
>> Hey, this is funny, Windows has lost internet access. What...? Did I 
>> delete something crucial? No, W11 decided that no secure boot implies 
>> networking is disabled, not secure.
> 
> Windoze is cheap crap, it has always been cheap crap, and it will always 
> be cheap crap ...

That's why Linus RULEZ Dood!

And Apple!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#150692 — Re: Some claims about full support for the major consumer operating systems

On Tue, 9/23/2025 6:38 PM, Hank Rogers wrote:
> Your Name wrote on 9/23/2025 3:18 PM:
>> On 2025-09-23 11:51:43 +0000, Carlos E.R. said:
>>> On 2025-09-20 14:48, Tyrone wrote:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> None have TPM 2.0 and Secure boot. But those are only checked during the
>>>> install. Neither are needed to actually RUN Windows 11.
>>>
>>> Hum.
>>>
>>> I have a W11 virtual machine on a vmware host running on Linux. One day I needed to delete some files. Windows refused. Ok, boot Linux from a CD and do it. But Linux CD would not boot, because failed key. Fine, disable secure boot, then boot Linux CD, then delete the damn file, finally reboot Windows.
>>>
>>> Hey, this is funny, Windows has lost internet access. What...? Did I delete something crucial? No, W11 decided that no secure boot implies networking is disabled, not secure.
>>
>> Windoze is cheap crap, it has always been cheap crap, and it will always be cheap crap ...
> 
> That's why Linus RULEZ Dood!
> 
> And Apple!
> 
> 

VMWare is its own special little world.

But, I can't get VirtualBox to run a plain Win11 install (without Rufus).
I'm sick of testing new versions of VirtualBox for working TPM passthru.

VMWare likes to insist on Secure Boot, or encrypting at least the
control file for the VM. When it is set to encrypt the container
files, that wastes disk space.

Windows, for its contribution, reached into UEFI and it revokes the old
MS Certificate, and installs a newer Certificate. That's a kind of "fix" for
Black Lotus. Linux, for its part, had to sign the Linux shim with the newer
Certificate (requiring people to fly to the air-gapped signing setup and
do it in person). Newer Linux DVDs and their shim, are now signed with
a certificate that is the same as the one Windows 11 installed. This
means you don't have to do anything special to boot whatever you want.

To get this to work on my Big machine, I actually had to install Win11 in
parallel with an existing Win11, *just* to get the update to install that
installs the certificate. Then I removed the excess Windows installation,
and since the UEFI store is in hardware, the certificate is then
present so the existing Windows can Secure Boot. That's an example of
the hassle involved, to keep the Black Lotus status of the machine correct.
(The Big machine has been given the task of Secure Boot testing.)

Computers are just... endless fun... and you can hardly get any
work done. It took *hours* today, just to make a simple PDF.

   [Picture]

    https://i.postimg.cc/DydK123N/PDF-fonts-onboard.gif

Now, try and do *that* on a modern computer. It's a PDF
with copies of full fonts (not subset) inside it. Some other
tools I have, don't even want to work with the file, when
it has full fonts in it :-) Well, that's how PDF used to work.

   Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android

csiph-web