Yeah yeah, change the record. If you think this is a big issue then you have never programmed for Windows / web / any operating system that isn't the very brief device-limited situation that iOS is lucky enough to be in.
Rubbish! This is the very reason PC games have vast arrays of settings to be able to tune performance from AA, AF, texture resolution, screen resolution, reflection visibility and resolution, physics complexity, HDR, bloom, etc, etc, while consoles don't. PCs have a vast array of potential hardware and capabilities compared to the static hardware of consoles.
I think you took his second point the wrong way, feature wise you can support Kitkat for android and that'll cover ~70% of users or something like that.
Except that there is an enormous range of hardware. For every iPhone hardware revision there are thousands of Android device hardware revisions, thinking that you can just code for an OS when you have a huge amount of hardware variation is very naive. The difficulty is in making sure the game runs decently on a vast range of hardware. It's easy to test on all supported hardware configurations for the latest iOS release but how do you do that for Android KitKat for example?
Yes, you've nailed it, your reading skills are excellent. Because of the Kardashians.
Well that is what you said: "In a world where Kardashians exist? Publicity is worth much more than any exploit or deliverable good or service.", it's complete and utter rubbish but it is what you said.
Well here's the catch. No one will be able to prove that they have NOT sold it to anyone. So there is no risk of exposing themselves as idiots.
Except to their potential customers to whom they have nothing to sell.
IOS jailbreaks have a very short window of usefulness. For instance last jailbreak on the latest IOS9 was only "current" for a week or two (from the realease of jailbreak to the release of 9.1). So all this will expire extremely fast, but the publicity remains.
No, if you read what they do it is selling the exploits to government agencies so it won't be publicly disclosed as a jailbreak.
I am just saying it smells like a publicity bullshit.
And like i said, that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. If they have nothing to offer then publicity is pointless.
Sorry but that in no way infers this try again. This need to "try again" on simple statements really is a recurring theme with you.
But back to the question at hand, the question you originally responded to yet are unable to answer here. Try again to answer it, but of course like the several other times I have posed the exact question you have failed time and time again. It's not that hard, I know you're frustrated at your cognitive disability but surely if you read it slowly you can answer it and see how discussions of whether it is an "advantage" are not relevant or in any way necessary to answer that question. Your inability to answer it thus far has already proved you a simpleton but even you should be able to manage it given enough attempts.
We have not seen a browser based jailbreak for quite a long time and it is extremely unlikely, that there is one now.
Why? We had remote jailbreaks in ios7 just last year, what has changed since then that makes it "extremely unlikely" now?
What I'm saying is that they are just lying, about the jailbreak as well as the payout. For publicity.
That makes no sense. The publicity is centered around this one thing, if they can't deliver it to the people they are publicizing it to then they just expose themselves as idiots.
I am saying that these guys are just bullshitting.
So you're saying that in the context where you used the word "advantage", advantage can be relevant without comparison with a disadvantage, if the ability to audit software is advantageous.
Yes of course, because Apple just doesn't have bugs so it would be very unlikely that somebody would find one even if offered a million dollars to do so.
It has publicity bullshit written all over it.
Well obviously the company that paid it out is going to want to recoup their investment so they will publicize it. If they had nothing then there is nothing to publicize.
Ok, great. In the context where you used the word "advantage", can advantage be relevant without comparison with a disadvantage?
If the ability to audit software is advantageous - which is precisely what I'm trying to establish, but you obviously have no idea hence your inability to answer the question - then comparable software which does not have this ability would be at a disadvantage with respect to this. However at this point that is completely and utterly irrelevant because the question remains:
>>Close... you have to trust not only the auditor's technical proficiency, but also their intentions. With open source, you have the option--no, the power--of getting a second opinion. From someone you select and fund, instead of whomever the original vendor hired.
>Right but does anybody actually do this? Like it sounds good in theory but does it work in practise. Strikes me there are a lot of existing open source projects that would be viable candidates to prove this out.
Again, it isn't that complicated so why can't you answer it? It seems no matter how many times it is posed you lack the basic cognitive function to understand a very very simple question. Unfortunately it seems it cannot be dumbed down to your level.
I never said I didn't, merely that it wasn't in the initial question and is not relevant at this stage.
So here is the initial question, in context, yet again:
>>Close... you have to trust not only the auditor's technical proficiency, but also their intentions. With open source, you have the option--no, the power--of getting a second opinion. From someone you select and fund, instead of whomever the original vendor hired.
>Right but does anybody actually do this? Like it sounds good in theory but does it work in practise. Strikes me there are a lot of existing open source projects that would be viable candidates to prove this out.
Try again, it really is not that complicated...well not for most people though you are obviously having a great amount of difficulty with it.
If the exploit requires Google code (Chrome for iOS) to be successful, how is it *not* Google's fault, at least in part?
It is to a degree, but the main point of a "sandbox" is to prevent an application's security vulnerability from compromising the whole OS. If the application is properly sandboxed then whether it is secure or not shouldn't matter with respect to the security of the OS.
>>Close... you have to trust not only the auditor's technical proficiency, but also their intentions. With open source, you have the option--no, the power--of getting a second opinion. From someone you select and fund, instead of whomever the original vendor hired.
>Right but does anybody actually do this? Like it sounds good in theory but does it work in practise. Strikes me there are a lot of existing open source projects that would be viable candidates to prove this out.
Wrong, you just restated my initial question because you couldn't answer it you idiot.
So tell me, can an "advantage" ever exist without comparison with a "disadvantage" ?
Irrelevant, the question you failed to answer said nothing about "advantage":
Right but does anybody actually do this? Like it sounds good in theory but does it work in practise. Strikes me there are a lot of existing open source projects that would be viable candidates to prove this out.
It's a very simple question, why do you have so much difficulty with it?
So you're actually saying that you can't answer my question until I answer your question which is just repeating my question but replacing "open" with "closed"?
Whether it is practical or not and whether one can or does audit open source software is not affected in any way, shape or form by the ability to do in closed source software. So you being a braindead parrot just demonstrates you don't know how to answer the question. But I'll answer your question anyway:
But does anybody actually audit closed source software?
I don't know.
Like it sounds good in theory but does it work in practise[sic]. Strikes me there are a lot of existing closed source projects that would be viable candidates to prove this out.
Prove what out? This is a nonsensical restatement of what I wrote.
Like it sounds good in theory but does it work in practise[sic]. Strikes me there are a lot of existing closed source projects that would be viable candidates to prove this out.
Prove what out? I don't think I've ever seen the "ability to audit" paraded as an advantage of closed source software, but I certainly have for open source software, hence the question.
As far as guarantee of competent audit goes - it is in neither open nor closed source software. As far as existence of insecure software goes - it is in both open and closed source software.
I'm not talking about closed source software, I'm talking about open source software. What part of what was written are you having difficulty understanding? It's not that complicated.
So what is an example of an open project that is audited and verified as secure? The ability to do this is very often quoted as a benefit so there should be a lot of examples that could be used as case studies to further justify it.
Close... you have to trust not only the auditor's technical proficiency, but also their intentions. With open source, you have the option--no, the power--of getting a second opinion. From someone you select and fund, instead of whomever the original vendor hired.
Right but does anybody actually do this? Like it sounds good in theory but does it work in practise. Strikes me there are a lot of existing open source projects that would be viable candidates to prove this out.
I don't have the time or resources to replace a bad head gasket in my car. But I am not going to buy a car with the hood welded shut.
What's the difference? If you don't have the time or resources to replace it then it's not going to get replaced. Generally most people don't have the time, but do have the resources to get engine parts replaced.
On top of that, these phones are made by Google. Google doesn't *want* you to store stuff on your device, besides apps and caches and such. They want you to store all your data in "the cloud"
So why did they come out announce Adopted Storage Devices as a big feature of Marshmallow then? Runs totally contrary to your theory.
If you really want total control over your own devices, you can't beat Android. The trick is to choose a cell phone carrier that lets you own your own device.
It's more about that device manufacturer since almost all of them have binary drivers - particularly in critical parts like the radios - and it also means avoiding things like Google Play Services. I'm not sure which devices give you "total control over your own devices" but if there are some then they certainly aren't the norm as far as Android (or indeed any other mobile system) is concerned.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah yeah, change the record. If you think this is a big issue then you have never programmed for Windows / web / any operating system that isn't the very brief device-limited situation that iOS is lucky enough to be in.
Rubbish! This is the very reason PC games have vast arrays of settings to be able to tune performance from AA, AF, texture resolution, screen resolution, reflection visibility and resolution, physics complexity, HDR, bloom, etc, etc, while consoles don't. PCs have a vast array of potential hardware and capabilities compared to the static hardware of consoles.
I think you took his second point the wrong way, feature wise you can support Kitkat for android and that'll cover ~70% of users or something like that.
Except that there is an enormous range of hardware. For every iPhone hardware revision there are thousands of Android device hardware revisions, thinking that you can just code for an OS when you have a huge amount of hardware variation is very naive. The difficulty is in making sure the game runs decently on a vast range of hardware. It's easy to test on all supported hardware configurations for the latest iOS release but how do you do that for Android KitKat for example?
Users: "You UXtards obviously never hover over links to see if they're RickRolls or goatses, do you?"
TinyURL and the like removed that.
while ignoring 11 year old bugs.
As in they are not fixing them or they are ignoring pull requests from OSS contributors that fix them?
Yes, you've nailed it, your reading skills are excellent. Because of the Kardashians.
Well that is what you said: "In a world where Kardashians exist? Publicity is worth much more than any exploit or deliverable good or service.", it's complete and utter rubbish but it is what you said.
"We have sold it to customer Y exclusively, but come to us with any other needs"
If they have nothing to sell that is pointless, what are they going to offer?
Government agencies do not need exploits, they can order a backdoor, and probably have.
Yes of course, maybe you should take your idea to all those agencies complaining about the inability to access seized Apple devices.
In a world where Kardashians exist? Publicity is worth much more than any exploit or deliverable good or service.
So you don't actually know or have any idea at all, your answer is just "because of the Kardashians".
Well here's the catch. No one will be able to prove that they have NOT sold it to anyone. So there is no risk of exposing themselves as idiots.
Except to their potential customers to whom they have nothing to sell.
IOS jailbreaks have a very short window of usefulness. For instance last jailbreak on the latest IOS9 was only "current" for a week or two (from the realease of jailbreak to the release of 9.1). So all this will expire extremely fast, but the publicity remains.
No, if you read what they do it is selling the exploits to government agencies so it won't be publicly disclosed as a jailbreak.
I am just saying it smells like a publicity bullshit.
And like i said, that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. If they have nothing to offer then publicity is pointless.
Sorry but that in no way infers this try again. This need to "try again" on simple statements really is a recurring theme with you.
But back to the question at hand, the question you originally responded to yet are unable to answer here. Try again to answer it, but of course like the several other times I have posed the exact question you have failed time and time again. It's not that hard, I know you're frustrated at your cognitive disability but surely if you read it slowly you can answer it and see how discussions of whether it is an "advantage" are not relevant or in any way necessary to answer that question. Your inability to answer it thus far has already proved you a simpleton but even you should be able to manage it given enough attempts.
We have not seen a browser based jailbreak for quite a long time and it is extremely unlikely, that there is one now.
Why? We had remote jailbreaks in ios7 just last year, what has changed since then that makes it "extremely unlikely" now?
What I'm saying is that they are just lying, about the jailbreak as well as the payout. For publicity.
That makes no sense. The publicity is centered around this one thing, if they can't deliver it to the people they are publicizing it to then they just expose themselves as idiots.
I am saying that these guys are just bullshitting.
Just because you don't like the idea of it.
So you're saying that in the context where you used the word "advantage", advantage can be relevant without comparison with a disadvantage, if the ability to audit software is advantageous.
No, nowhere did I say nor infer that. Try again.
Which sound very unlikely.
Yes of course, because Apple just doesn't have bugs so it would be very unlikely that somebody would find one even if offered a million dollars to do so.
It has publicity bullshit written all over it.
Well obviously the company that paid it out is going to want to recoup their investment so they will publicize it. If they had nothing then there is nothing to publicize.
Ok, great. In the context where you used the word "advantage", can advantage be relevant without comparison with a disadvantage?
If the ability to audit software is advantageous - which is precisely what I'm trying to establish, but you obviously have no idea hence your inability to answer the question - then comparable software which does not have this ability would be at a disadvantage with respect to this. However at this point that is completely and utterly irrelevant because the question remains:
>>Close... you have to trust not only the auditor's technical proficiency, but also their intentions. With open source, you have the option--no, the power--of getting a second opinion. From someone you select and fund, instead of whomever the original vendor hired.
>Right but does anybody actually do this? Like it sounds good in theory but does it work in practise. Strikes me there are a lot of existing open source projects that would be viable candidates to prove this out.
Again, it isn't that complicated so why can't you answer it? It seems no matter how many times it is posed you lack the basic cognitive function to understand a very very simple question. Unfortunately it seems it cannot be dumbed down to your level.
I never said I didn't, merely that it wasn't in the initial question and is not relevant at this stage.
So here is the initial question, in context, yet again:
>>Close... you have to trust not only the auditor's technical proficiency, but also their intentions. With open source, you have the option--no, the power--of getting a second opinion. From someone you select and fund, instead of whomever the original vendor hired.
>Right but does anybody actually do this? Like it sounds good in theory but does it work in practise. Strikes me there are a lot of existing open source projects that would be viable candidates to prove this out.
Try again, it really is not that complicated...well not for most people though you are obviously having a great amount of difficulty with it.
Why bother paying bug bounties if you can let other people (jailbreakers) pay for them or discover them for free?
If you read the top level comment of this discussion thread you will see exactly why.
If the exploit requires Google code (Chrome for iOS) to be successful, how is it *not* Google's fault, at least in part?
It is to a degree, but the main point of a "sandbox" is to prevent an application's security vulnerability from compromising the whole OS. If the application is properly sandboxed then whether it is secure or not shouldn't matter with respect to the security of the OS.
>>Close... you have to trust not only the auditor's technical proficiency, but also their intentions. With open source, you have the option--no, the power--of getting a second opinion. From someone you select and fund, instead of whomever the original vendor hired.
>Right but does anybody actually do this? Like it sounds good in theory but does it work in practise. Strikes me there are a lot of existing open source projects that would be viable candidates to prove this out.
Here.
Try again, it really is not that complicated.
No, I am asking even more basic questions
Wrong, you just restated my initial question because you couldn't answer it you idiot.
So tell me, can an "advantage" ever exist without comparison with a "disadvantage" ?
Irrelevant, the question you failed to answer said nothing about "advantage":
Right but does anybody actually do this? Like it sounds good in theory but does it work in practise. Strikes me there are a lot of existing open source projects that would be viable candidates to prove this out.
It's a very simple question, why do you have so much difficulty with it?
So you're actually saying that you can't answer my question until I answer your question which is just repeating my question but replacing "open" with "closed"?
Whether it is practical or not and whether one can or does audit open source software is not affected in any way, shape or form by the ability to do in closed source software. So you being a braindead parrot just demonstrates you don't know how to answer the question. But I'll answer your question anyway:
But does anybody actually audit closed source software?
I don't know.
Like it sounds good in theory but does it work in practise[sic]. Strikes me there are a lot of existing closed source projects that would be viable candidates to prove this out.
Prove what out? This is a nonsensical restatement of what I wrote.
But does anybody actually audit closed source software?
Did you read the post I was responding to I even quoted it but I'll do it again: With open source, you have the option--no, the power--of getting a second opinion." so the question stands. Why are you talking about closed source?
Like it sounds good in theory but does it work in practise[sic]. Strikes me there are a lot of existing closed source projects that would be viable candidates to prove this out.
Prove what out? I don't think I've ever seen the "ability to audit" paraded as an advantage of closed source software, but I certainly have for open source software, hence the question.
As far as guarantee of competent audit goes - it is in neither open nor closed source software. As far as existence of insecure software goes - it is in both open and closed source software.
I'm not talking about closed source software, I'm talking about open source software. What part of what was written are you having difficulty understanding? It's not that complicated.
"open == secure or insecure"
So what is an example of an open project that is audited and verified as secure? The ability to do this is very often quoted as a benefit so there should be a lot of examples that could be used as case studies to further justify it.
Close... you have to trust not only the auditor's technical proficiency, but also their intentions. With open source, you have the option--no, the power--of getting a second opinion. From someone you select and fund, instead of whomever the original vendor hired.
Right but does anybody actually do this? Like it sounds good in theory but does it work in practise. Strikes me there are a lot of existing open source projects that would be viable candidates to prove this out.
I don't have the time or resources to replace a bad head gasket in my car. But I am not going to buy a car with the hood welded shut.
What's the difference? If you don't have the time or resources to replace it then it's not going to get replaced. Generally most people don't have the time, but do have the resources to get engine parts replaced.
Well, to answer your question: "Essential" for it to meet the definition.
That's all "essential" meant right there.
Definition of what? Certainly not "free/libre software".
On top of that, these phones are made by Google. Google doesn't *want* you to store stuff on your device, besides apps and caches and such. They want you to store all your data in "the cloud"
So why did they come out announce Adopted Storage Devices as a big feature of Marshmallow then? Runs totally contrary to your theory.
I'm sticking with Apple devices from now on.
If you really want total control over your own devices, you can't beat Android. The trick is to choose a cell phone carrier that lets you own your own device.
It's more about that device manufacturer since almost all of them have binary drivers - particularly in critical parts like the radios - and it also means avoiding things like Google Play Services. I'm not sure which devices give you "total control over your own devices" but if there are some then they certainly aren't the norm as far as Android (or indeed any other mobile system) is concerned.