It was your third point that made me realize the point you were trying to make, which is actually complimentary to the point I was making. It was your tone that made me stop reading before I got that far and go do something else; I only read so far as my eyes grazed the screen when I came back to close this tab. That you chose that particular tone tells me that you still fail to see my point and think that I am arguing when I am not.
Oh, no, I get what you're trying to say, I'm just subtly pointing out the fallacy of your reasoning. You see, for various reasons, I am not well suited to be a surgeon or a chemist, or most other highly-skilled professions that you might deem worthy; knowledge is the least of those reasons. You certainly wouldn't want my shaky hands cutting you open or digging around inside you, nor mixing chemicals to form an unstable but important solution, so it would certainly be worthless for me to pursue those fields. Oh, but there exists equipment that can do those things under my direction? There sure does, and it's controlled by software written by people like me.
Well, nothing that was decided, implemented, and shipped by someone else, at least. And you should love that, as the same applies to you; nothing someone else does with your work is your fault. Would you rather that changed? And, honestly, if Google's license terms didn't allow modification and required updated, do you honestly think anything would change? Samsung, et-al, would still roll the dice, figuring the cost of settling with Google after the fact would be lower than playing by the rules in the first place.
Apple is a device manufacturer, so they get to handle the entire release cycle of the software that runs on their devices. Samsung, et-al, could do the same, but they don't have their own OS to put on the devices they ship, so they screw Android up as bad as they can to make it "their own" and, well, here we are. Google, not being a device manufacturer, needs the hardware side to be done by somebody else and, thus, is not in a position to control the entire lifecycle; once it's in the hands of a 3rd party, they can do whatever to it. They di reign things in quite well with the Nexus series, but they have only recently managed to get the manufacturers to play ball and put together decent high-end devices (starting with the 6) for that line. Now that they've broken that ground, I'm seeing more and more Nexus devices out there, which is a good thing.
But yes, as far as the CDMA versions of Nexus phones are concerned, the carriers can simply say "nope" and the update does not get released; since a CDMA phone requires carrier intervention to use on a different network and the larger carriers tend not to activate off-network devices, there is no competition and the carriers really do play hardball, opting to let devices run obsolete software in order to force purchases of new devices. In the GSM arena, where devices (once unlocked, which is the default for a Nexus device) can be moved from provider to provider simply by inserting a new SIM, there is actual competition between providers to provide better and more up-to-date devices; it is on the manufacturers to allow that to happen and Google does a very good job of that, IMO, with the GSM Nexus line, where providers generally don't stop them from doing so. That is to say, if AT&T were to drag their feet approving a new update and T-Mobile approved it straight-away, well, that would make AT&T look bad when they're already losing marketshare, so the updates got approved.
So yes, this is a carrier problem, at least as it relates to Nexus devices.
I'm one of those highly skilled people, would you like me to perform that difficult (even for a skilled surgeon) surgery even though my skills lie in the realm of computing? Simply being "highly skilled" does not make one highly skilled at everything, so I sure hope you answer is "no", for your own sake.
Unfortunately, that has more to do with Verizon and Sprint than Google. Sprint refused to certify 4.0.4 for their network so they did not carry the phone for its initial launch, they then only certified 4.1.1 and 4.2.1 (but not 4.2.2, which Verizon certified). Verizon certified 4.0.4, 4.1.1, and 4.2.2 (but not 4.2.1, which Sprint certified). The GSM carriers can't stop you from using your own device regardless of their certification, so you generally see more updates for GSM phones where the carrier is one step removed from the certification process, at least for the Nexus line where Google doesn't have a direct relationship with the carriers that requires them to sell their phones that way.
It's not random, but you're right to say it's not the same. It's a damn good indicator, though, especially when all vulnerabilities are bugs (from an end-user perspective, that is; a purposeful backdoor might not be a bug to the developer) and most bugs can be exploited (e.g. are vulnerabilities).
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".
Well, it seems that because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall mot be infringed. It doesn't say "the right of the the people, serving in a well regulated Militia, to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed", it says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". It is your reading of the amendment that is perverse, friend.
Such a fake name, eh? Go to the Cleveland city records office and ask for my birth certificate. Shouldn't be hard to find my name in order to do that. then come find me in Hercules, CA and see how fake I am. As for my accomplishments in computing, many have been for private ventures and none have been on the backs of others nearly to the degree that your one accomplishment has. Keep talking, though.
That's not *Android* being insecure, that's the vendors' products being insecure. Those of us with Nexus devices get patches as they're released by Google, which happens quite quickly.
I seem to recall arguing at length with someone about this on here. Good to see that actual sources (of which he provided none) agree with my position, as well as me own experience.
And yet, there are a lot more types of knowledge than simply laws and culture. In the interest of not repeating myself, I'll simply suggest that you read that last sentence of my previous post, as you seem to have missed it.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, yes, and one should take one's own advice, no? Perhaps read the rest of the thread?
It was your third point that made me realize the point you were trying to make, which is actually complimentary to the point I was making. It was your tone that made me stop reading before I got that far and go do something else; I only read so far as my eyes grazed the screen when I came back to close this tab. That you chose that particular tone tells me that you still fail to see my point and think that I am arguing when I am not.
Ah, is it me who lacks understanding, though? Read the thread again, including the explanation of my answer.
Oh, no, I get what you're trying to say, I'm just subtly pointing out the fallacy of your reasoning. You see, for various reasons, I am not well suited to be a surgeon or a chemist, or most other highly-skilled professions that you might deem worthy; knowledge is the least of those reasons. You certainly wouldn't want my shaky hands cutting you open or digging around inside you, nor mixing chemicals to form an unstable but important solution, so it would certainly be worthless for me to pursue those fields. Oh, but there exists equipment that can do those things under my direction? There sure does, and it's controlled by software written by people like me.
Well, nothing that was decided, implemented, and shipped by someone else, at least. And you should love that, as the same applies to you; nothing someone else does with your work is your fault. Would you rather that changed? And, honestly, if Google's license terms didn't allow modification and required updated, do you honestly think anything would change? Samsung, et-al, would still roll the dice, figuring the cost of settling with Google after the fact would be lower than playing by the rules in the first place.
Apple is a device manufacturer, so they get to handle the entire release cycle of the software that runs on their devices. Samsung, et-al, could do the same, but they don't have their own OS to put on the devices they ship, so they screw Android up as bad as they can to make it "their own" and, well, here we are. Google, not being a device manufacturer, needs the hardware side to be done by somebody else and, thus, is not in a position to control the entire lifecycle; once it's in the hands of a 3rd party, they can do whatever to it. They di reign things in quite well with the Nexus series, but they have only recently managed to get the manufacturers to play ball and put together decent high-end devices (starting with the 6) for that line. Now that they've broken that ground, I'm seeing more and more Nexus devices out there, which is a good thing.
But yes, as far as the CDMA versions of Nexus phones are concerned, the carriers can simply say "nope" and the update does not get released; since a CDMA phone requires carrier intervention to use on a different network and the larger carriers tend not to activate off-network devices, there is no competition and the carriers really do play hardball, opting to let devices run obsolete software in order to force purchases of new devices. In the GSM arena, where devices (once unlocked, which is the default for a Nexus device) can be moved from provider to provider simply by inserting a new SIM, there is actual competition between providers to provide better and more up-to-date devices; it is on the manufacturers to allow that to happen and Google does a very good job of that, IMO, with the GSM Nexus line, where providers generally don't stop them from doing so. That is to say, if AT&T were to drag their feet approving a new update and T-Mobile approved it straight-away, well, that would make AT&T look bad when they're already losing marketshare, so the updates got approved.
So yes, this is a carrier problem, at least as it relates to Nexus devices.
I'm one of those highly skilled people, would you like me to perform that difficult (even for a skilled surgeon) surgery even though my skills lie in the realm of computing? Simply being "highly skilled" does not make one highly skilled at everything, so I sure hope you answer is "no", for your own sake.
Actually, it's both and the post you were replying to is an example of a valid explanation of the problem.
Good thing I never made that argument, then! ;)
No need to "just say", I never said anything about iOS and I'm fully aware my iPad gets updates direct from Apple. I thought we were past this... ;)
Or they bill hourly.
Unfortunately, that has more to do with Verizon and Sprint than Google. Sprint refused to certify 4.0.4 for their network so they did not carry the phone for its initial launch, they then only certified 4.1.1 and 4.2.1 (but not 4.2.2, which Verizon certified). Verizon certified 4.0.4, 4.1.1, and 4.2.2 (but not 4.2.1, which Sprint certified). The GSM carriers can't stop you from using your own device regardless of their certification, so you generally see more updates for GSM phones where the carrier is one step removed from the certification process, at least for the Nexus line where Google doesn't have a direct relationship with the carriers that requires them to sell their phones that way.
It's not random, but you're right to say it's not the same. It's a damn good indicator, though, especially when all vulnerabilities are bugs (from an end-user perspective, that is; a purposeful backdoor might not be a bug to the developer) and most bugs can be exploited (e.g. are vulnerabilities).
*slow clap* +1 and bravo. If I hadn't already posted in this discussion, you'd be getting a +1 Insightful from me.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".
Well, it seems that because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall mot be infringed. It doesn't say "the right of the the people, serving in a well regulated Militia, to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed", it says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". It is your reading of the amendment that is perverse, friend.
Such a fake name, eh? Go to the Cleveland city records office and ask for my birth certificate. Shouldn't be hard to find my name in order to do that. then come find me in Hercules, CA and see how fake I am. As for my accomplishments in computing, many have been for private ventures and none have been on the backs of others nearly to the degree that your one accomplishment has. Keep talking, though.
+1MIL, Insightful
You took the words right from my head.
Many of the security problems with Android are design problems rather than bugs.
Which you admit they've fixed in recent versions.
The rest of your post, though: +1 as it applies to non-Nexus devices. Since Nexus devices *do* see updates, those tend to be much more secure.
That's not *Android* being insecure, that's the vendors' products being insecure. Those of us with Nexus devices get patches as they're released by Google, which happens quite quickly.
I seem to recall arguing at length with someone about this on here. Good to see that actual sources (of which he provided none) agree with my position, as well as me own experience.
He... doesn't seem too crushed to me.
Of course, your post wasn't at all masturbatory.
There will never be "no guns" though, only "no legal guns".
Yes, let Wikipedia be your source, I'm sure it'll never go anywhere; begging for money is a sure sign of financial stability and project health.
bear metal
That's some grizzly steel right there.
And yet, there are a lot more types of knowledge than simply laws and culture. In the interest of not repeating myself, I'll simply suggest that you read that last sentence of my previous post, as you seem to have missed it.