braiam

Thats pretty obvious, no system is perfect. But i think we are at the point where windows is simply too much of a pain in the rear, question is when it will hit ppl's nerves hard enough to make them switch. This might sound rude but to me it seems like most ppl are masochist and put up with anything just so they dont have to learn anything new.

I wont repeat things said in the previous pages. Use case dependent, and contrary to your belief for the majority it can be a viable alternative without any pain at all. (Just introduced my dad to kubuntu because windows as usual became slow and wanted me to reinstall it. Offered him the option to try it and he accepted it, so far havent heard him complaining even though he only uses a live session. Seems like one less windows machine in the house. [He is not tech-savvy by any standards BTW.])

These disclosures are the best way to expose companies doing a terrible job at writing secure code. It can be also an educational piece for programmers to learn from past mistakes. I think these two alone are a pretty good reason to release them into the wild after patches got released.....

Once it has been patched there is, to help people know what the exploits are so they can defend themselves and so future would be security researchers can learn more about cyber security and gain enough knowledge and proficiency to make it their area of specialization.

This is how security disclosure programmes work, the discloser gives the information to the developer of the software which then asks for secrecy surrounding the issue until it has been patched. Once it is then patched the secrecy no longer applies and then the developer of the software announces the issue has been fixed in a new version and gives credit to the discloser for disclosing the vulnerability as well as whatever financial reward the disclosure programme has.
 
This is by design to avoid malicious actors from exploiting the vulnerability before it has been patched. This is standard operating procedure for disclosing vulnerabilities in many open source projects and companies.

it would, if not for the fact that for security reasons the app itself should already be sandboxed on IOS if they are so serious about security. you can take over the browser all you want, if the browser's process cant touch anything, neither can this vulnerability.
 
i'd call this a good lesson for how running unprivileged apps in a very limiting context is good for security.
in a sense, a browser app shouldnt even need write access on it's own files aside from cache, configuration, and history.

It's incredible that people are this upset about a taskbar, calling for the firing of someone, yet they don't consider moving to another OS. Maybe I should get a soapbox and a megaphone and yell: VOTE WITH YOUR WALLETS PEOPLE