On 2021-09-14, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <shqv5b$qq$1@dont-email.me>, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> "Apple also has a massive backlog of bugs that it hasn¹t fixed,
>> according to the former employee and a current employee, who also
>> spoke on the condition of anonymity because of an NDA."
>
> that describes every software company.

Yup. What matters is how bugs are categorized, and whether the most
critical ones are patched quickly.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 2021-09-14, Robin Goodfellow <Ancient-of-Days@Heaven.Net> wrote:
> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> asked
>>> "Apple also has a massive backlog of bugs that it hasn¹t fixed,
>>> according to the former employee and a current employee, who also
>>> spoke on the condition of anonymity because of an NDA."
>>
>> that describes every software company.
>
> No nospam.

No, Arlen, anyone who has worked professionally in the software
development business will agree that any large software organization has
a large backlog of bugs, and will also agree that the number of bugs on
the backlog is relatively unimportant compared to how well truly
critical bugs are triaged.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> asked
> All of his feelyfeels. Tons of them!

Adults will notice that these apologists, like Jolly Roger & nospam,
*actually _hate_ Apple* for being so easily shown to lie to everyone.

That's why they consistently say Apple is no better than anyone else.
And that _hurts_ them because they _believed_ all the bullshit Apple spews.

And that's why Jolly Roger is so vehement against people who speak facts.

Why does Jolly Roger _hate_ people who know facts about Apple they don't?
I don't know why.

I suspect it's because it's so easy to show that nobody lies like Apple.

*Apple $113 million to US attorneys general for throttling older iPhones*
<https://www.theverge.com/2020/11/18/21573710/apple-battery-gate-throttle-iphones-settlement-amount>

*France Fines Apple $27 Million for Intentional iPhone Throttling*
<https://www.businessinsider.com/france-fines-apple-27-million-for-intentional-iphone-throttling-2020-2>
<https://www.loc.gov/item/global-legal-monitor/2020-02-28/france-watchdog-agency-fines-apple-for-deceitful-practice/>

Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> asked
> What have they done that was deliberately dishonest?

It's shocking how _ignorant_ these apologists like Alan Browne are.

It's telling that Alan Browne is completely ignorant Apple admitted to
French prosecutors that their _criminal_ intent in _secretly_ and
permanently throttling certain iPhones (and then to secretly backdate the
release notes and then _lie_ about it!) was to force customers to purchase
new phones.

That was a _criminal_ admission that their intent was to defraud customers!

The release note lies Apple told cost them 113 million in 34 US States!
And yet, Alan Browne is _completely ignorant_ of these well-known facts.

> But where computers and "what a backdoor" is, you bit the headlines w/o
> critical thinking at all.

As for critical thinking skills, this Alan Browne apologist is ignorant that
_everyone_ except the apologists and Apple sees these two new backdoors for
what they are.

The fact Apple admitted to _criminal_ intent to defraud customers is
completely lost on these apologists, who remain ungodly ignorant of facts.

It's _only_ Apple & apologists who claim the backdoors aren't back doors.
--
What's amazing is how these apologists always defend Apple to the death.

Lewis <g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> asked
>> What have they done that was deliberately dishonest?
>
> Nothing, he's trolling bullshit. Again.

What would this newsgroup be like if only these apologists,
all of whom are incredibly ignorant of the facts,
were the only ones posting to this newsgroup.

It would remain the kindergarten cesspool they want it to be.

They're ignorant that Apple admitted in a _criminal_ case
*intentional _criminal_ fraud*, where Apple purposefully
intended to defraud customers.

These apologists are completely ignorant that Apple admitted
purposefully trying to "mask battery issues" by backdating their
release notes and then publicly lying to the world about having done so.

REFERENCES:
*Apple $113 million to US attorneys general for throttling older iPhones*
<https://www.theverge.com/2020/11/18/21573710/apple-battery-gate-throttle-iphones-settlement-amount>
<https://www.reuters.com/article/apple-iphones-settlement-idUSL1N2I325Z>
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/11/18/apple-fine-battery/>

*France Fines Apple $27 Million for Intentional iPhone Throttling*
<https://www.businessinsider.com/france-fines-apple-27-million-for-intentional-iphone-throttling-2020-2>
<https://www.loc.gov/item/global-legal-monitor/2020-02-28/france-watchdog-agency-fines-apple-for-deceitful-practice/>
<https://www.jonesday.com/en/insights/2020/03/apple-settles-with-french-authorities-over-25-mill>

sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> asked
> However it is true, that as a percentage of sales, Apple's expenditures
> on R&D are small (7%), compared 13.0% for Nicrosoft, 15.1% for Google,
> and 21.0% for Facebook.

The apologists are ignorant of facts - but adults need to be aware of them.

Just to be clear on facts, it's not "just an R&D percentage" Apple lacks.
a. Samsung spends FOUR TIMES the number of dollars in R&D than does Apple!
b. Microsoft spends TWO AND A HALF TIMES the R&D dollars than does Apple!
c. Google spends TWICE the R&D dollars than Apple spends in R&D costs!
<https://money.cnn.com/2013/11/20/technology/mobile/apple-rd-spend/>

So it's not just that Apple spends far less than anyone in high tech in R&D
in just percentage (whereas Apple spends likely far more in MARKETING than
anyone - as that's what Apple is - Apple is all marketing & almost no R&D).

Even the _total dollars_ spent by Apple on R&D historically pales in
comparison to similar high tech companies (even far smaller companies!).

The apologists are ignorant of facts - but you need to be aware of them.
--
GRAPHS:
*Apple spends way less than Microsoft on R&D*
<https://money.cnn.com/2013/11/20/technology/mobile/apple-rd-spend/>
*Apple R&D spend % versus five "similar" tech companies*
<https://photos5.appleinsider.com/gallery/22343-26888-comparisonpercentagerdofrev2relabel-l.jpg>
*Five "similar" tech companies' revenue & R&D costs compared for one year*
<https://photos5.appleinsider.com/gallery/22343-26885-07-comparisonrevrdcostsrelabel-l.jpg>
*Apple R&D % change over the years*
<https://photos5.appleinsider.com/gallery/22343-26884-06-yoychangeinrdannualcosts-l.jpg>
*Apple net income versus operating income & R&D costs over the years*
<https://photos5.appleinsider.com/gallery/22343-26881-01-annualnetincomeopincomerdc-l.jpg>
*Apple annual net sales, operating income, & R&D costs over the years*
<https://photos5.appleinsider.com/gallery/22343-26882-02-annualnetsalesopincrdcosts-l.jpg>

CITES:
*Apple's R&D spending hits bottom as percentage of revenue*
<https://www.zdnet.com/article/apples-r-d-spending-hits-bottom-as-percentage-of-revenue/>
*Apple Is Spending Dramatically Below Peers on Innovation*
<https://www.barrons.com/articles/apple-innovation-research-development-acquisitions-cash-flow-buybacks-51597786424>
*Apple R&D spending is anemic compared to rivals' big budgets*
<https://www.cultofmac.com/720505/apple-rd-spending-2020-compared-to-google-microsoft/>
*Apple spends less on research & development than they advertise*
<https://www.ibtimes.com/why-apple-inc-spends-less-research-development-you-think-1954667>
*Apple is a cheapskate when it comes to R&D*
<https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2016/02/26/apple-cheapskate-when-comes-rd/80987938/>
*Analysts Criticize Apple Over Low R&D Spend*
<https://www.pymnts.com/apple/2018/apple-spend-more-rd/>
*Apple's R&D spending hits a low*
<https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/apples-randd-spending-hits-a-low-2011-10/>
*Is Apple Underinvesting in R&D?*
<https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/01/12/is-apple-underinvesting-in-rd-what-steve-jobs-woul.aspx>
*Apple spends way less than Microsoft on R&D*
<https://money.cnn.com/2013/11/20/technology/mobile/apple-rd-spend/index.html
*Why Apple Inc. Spends Less On Research And Development Than You Think*
<https://www.ibtimes.com/why-apple-inc-spends-less-research-development-you-think-1954667>
*Apple Research and Development Expenses by Year*
<https://dazeinfo.com/2019/09/27/apple-research-and-development-expenses-by-year-graphfarm/>
*Top Ten R&D spenders*
<https://www.electronicsweekly.com/news/business/521302-2018-02/>
*Apple, Inc. R&D: Too Little?*
<https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/12/01/apple-inc-rd-too-little-or-just-right.aspx>
*Qualcomm Should Be Scared of These 2 Words That Apple Just Uttered*
<https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/05/05/qualcomm-should-be-scared-of-these-2-words-that-ap.aspx>
*Apple R&D spending is "efficient" versus its competitors*
<https://appleinsider.com/articles/17/08/09/though-apples-rd-spending-is-massive-its-still-more-efficient-than-all-other-competitors>
etc.
--
Nobody in high tech spends LESS than Apple in R&D nor more in Marketing!

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> asked
> the point is the percentage is small because the denominator is very
> big.

What's _always_ the case is how _ignorant_ these apologists are of facts.

It's not just that Apple's percentage is mostly MARKETING and almost no R&D.

*Apple spends _less_ in total R&D dollars than _most_ high tech companies.*
--
GRAPHS:
*Apple spends way less than Microsoft on R&D*
<https://money.cnn.com/2013/11/20/technology/mobile/apple-rd-spend/>
*Apple R&D spend % versus five "similar" tech companies*
<https://photos5.appleinsider.com/gallery/22343-26888-comparisonpercentagerdofrev2relabel-l.jpg>
*Five "similar" tech companies' revenue & R&D costs compared for one year*
<https://photos5.appleinsider.com/gallery/22343-26885-07-comparisonrevrdcostsrelabel-l.jpg>
*Apple R&D % change over the years*
<https://photos5.appleinsider.com/gallery/22343-26884-06-yoychangeinrdannualcosts-l.jpg>
*Apple net income versus operating income & R&D costs over the years*
<https://photos5.appleinsider.com/gallery/22343-26881-01-annualnetincomeopincomerdc-l.jpg>
*Apple annual net sales, operating income, & R&D costs over the years*
<https://photos5.appleinsider.com/gallery/22343-26882-02-annualnetsalesopincrdcosts-l.jpg>

CITES:
*Apple's R&D spending hits bottom as percentage of revenue*
<https://www.zdnet.com/article/apples-r-d-spending-hits-bottom-as-percentage-of-revenue/>
*Apple Is Spending Dramatically Below Peers on Innovation*
<https://www.barrons.com/articles/apple-innovation-research-development-acquisitions-cash-flow-buybacks-51597786424>
*Apple R&D spending is anemic compared to rivals' big budgets*
<https://www.cultofmac.com/720505/apple-rd-spending-2020-compared-to-google-microsoft/>
*Apple spends less on research & development than they advertise*
<https://www.ibtimes.com/why-apple-inc-spends-less-research-development-you-think-1954667>
*Apple is a cheapskate when it comes to R&D*
<https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2016/02/26/apple-cheapskate-when-comes-rd/80987938/>
*Analysts Criticize Apple Over Low R&D Spend*
<https://www.pymnts.com/apple/2018/apple-spend-more-rd/>
*Apple's R&D spending hits a low*
<https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/apples-randd-spending-hits-a-low-2011-10/>
*Is Apple Underinvesting in R&D?*
<https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/01/12/is-apple-underinvesting-in-rd-what-steve-jobs-woul.aspx>
*Apple spends way less than Microsoft on R&D*
<https://money.cnn.com/2013/11/20/technology/mobile/apple-rd-spend/index.html
*Why Apple Inc. Spends Less On Research And Development Than You Think*
<https://www.ibtimes.com/why-apple-inc-spends-less-research-development-you-think-1954667>
*Apple Research and Development Expenses by Year*
<https://dazeinfo.com/2019/09/27/apple-research-and-development-expenses-by-year-graphfarm/>
*Top Ten R&D spenders*
<https://www.electronicsweekly.com/news/business/521302-2018-02/>
*Apple, Inc. R&D: Too Little?*
<https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/12/01/apple-inc-rd-too-little-or-just-right.aspx>
*Qualcomm Should Be Scared of These 2 Words That Apple Just Uttered*
<https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/05/05/qualcomm-should-be-scared-of-these-2-words-that-ap.aspx>
*Apple R&D spending is "efficient" versus its competitors*
<https://appleinsider.com/articles/17/08/09/though-apples-rd-spending-is-massive-its-still-more-efficient-than-all-other-competitors>
etc.
--
Nobody in high tech spends LESS than Apple in R&D nor more in Marketing!

Lewis <g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> asked
> What matters is how effective the R&D is at developing new products,
> patents, and improvements to existing products and technology.

No.

*What matters (to an Apple customer) is how well the crap is marketed.*

People pay for an iPhone, which is by all counts, a crippled device.

Why do you think Apple spends so much MARKETING their products, Lewis?

You don't make those ungodly profits without a lot of fools buying them.
--
Nobody is as good at marketing expensive crap to these fools than is Apple.

Lewis <g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> asked
> And which they cannot even detect on Android because the security on
> android is so complete shit it is incapable of showing if it is
> infected.

Every time these apologists speak, we find out how ignorant they are.

Ignorant apologists believe what Apple paints on the sides of buildings.

And yet, the facts remain iOS has so many zero-click zero-day security holes
that this one was a _repeat_ of an earlier set of holes Apple _knew_ about!

Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> asked
> anyone who has worked professionally in the software
> development business will agree that any large software organization has
> a large backlog of bugs, and will also agree that the number of bugs on
> the backlog is relatively unimportant compared to how well truly
> critical bugs are triaged.

Hi Jolly Roger,

I'm going to treat you, in this response, as if you're an adult (just like I
treat Steve, badgolferman, JF Mezei, and Ant as adults).

Adults can comprehend the facts.
Adults can integrate nuance of facts into their belief systems.

Therefore, as someone who successfully worked in Silicon Valley startups for
decades, I will assume, for a moment, that your brain is that of an adult.

In the companies I worked for, when a bug was found, not only was that bug
fixed, but we always implemented procedures to check for that same bug in
_every_ subsequent release of code. It's what good companies do.

This bug, as you must be aware of by now, is a _repeat_ of a previous bug,
and this isn't even the first time Apple has let an existing bug repeat.

The fact is that Google proved beyond a doubt that entire huge sections of
Apple code have had _zero QA_ in years, Jolly Roger.

What you apologists are ignorant of is Apple doesn't test their code base.

Apple lets the user do the testing and the fact remains that Apple _never_
finds these zero-click zero-day holes - they're always found by others.

In a word, Apple doesn't give a shit about their code quality.
It's sufficient (for their customer base) to just paint walls with slogans.
--
Of all high tech companies, Apple is all marketing and almost zero R&D.

Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> asked
> Yup. What matters is how bugs are categorized, and whether the most
> critical ones are patched quickly.

No.

*Stop sending us Apple bugs, we have enough already*
<https://www.cyberscoop.com/ios-zero-day-zerodium-high-supply/>

The fact is all Apple operating systems are so horribly insecure, hackers
stopped accepting zero-click zero-day holes - there are so many out there!

And it's _never_ Apple who finds all these horrible holes in Apple products!
*Google Reveals BuggyCow, a new MacOS Zero-Day Vulnerability*
<https://www.wired.com/story/google-project-zero-buggycow-macos-zero-day/>

Apple spends their money not on QA, but on painting slogans on buildings.
Apple is all MARKETING (& almost zero R&D compared to high tech companies).

What matters is that the zero-click zero-day holes don't exist in the wild
for months and even for years without Apple having any clue whatsoever that
these zero-day zero-click security hole exists in _all_ their operating
systems.
a. These zero-day zero-click holes exist in the watch operating system
b. They exist right now in the mobile device (iPhone & iPad)
c. They exist at this very moment on all the macOS operating systems

Why?

*Because Apple doesn't give a shit about testing code for security holes.*
This has been shown time and time again by the published facts extent.

You don't make those ungodly profits without spending all your money on
ADVERTISING that the stuff is secure (without it actually being secure).

Apple has _entire huge swatches_ of code completely untested for years!

This was proved beyond a doubt (multiple times!) by security researchers
(Google being paramount in that effort).
--
Nobody in high tech spends less on R&D & more in MARKETING than Apple.

Lewis <g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> asked
> Microsoft has known about the critical Outlook flaws fore over a year.
> they didn't bother to fix them, ort of, until they were publicly
> exposed.

Adults will notice the apologists claim Apple is no better than Microsoft.

What's interesting is both Apple & the apologists try to have it both ways:
a. They claim (sans any facts) Apple is better than Microsoft
b. Except when it comes to all these bad facts about Apple not testing bugs
c. Then it's Microsoft's fault that Apple products are all untested for bugs

> Microsoft has know about their print spooler issues for DECADES. They
> have failed to fix them, and no describe them as "insecure by design"
> and offer no reasonable mitigation.

And yet, when we discussed this bug on the Windows newsgroup, for quite a
long time, nobody blamed Apple for what is a Microsoft bug after all.

*It's only the apologists who blame all Apple's bugs on Microsoft.*

> Android "security" is a bad joke that is easily bypassed by anyone with
> access to google for a few minutes. and anyone with physical access to
> the device.

Apologists are always ignorant; they only believe what is painted on walls.

What's interesting is the apologists are _ignorant_ Android is likely far
more secure than iOS ever could possibly be - and that Android exploits are
vastly more expensive than are iOS exploits in the hackers' markets.
*No, Your iPhone Is Not More Secure Than Android*
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2021/03/16/iphone-12-pro-max-and-iphone-13-not-more-secure-than-google-and-samsung-android-warns-cyber-billionaire/>
*What the market for zero-day exploits tells us about our phones*
<https://onezero.medium.com/is-android-getting-safer-than-ios-4a2ca6f359d3>

In fact, apologists are ignorant that new zero-day zero-click iOS exploits
are worthless because there are already too many of them out there!
*Stop sending us Apple bugs, we have enough already*
<https://www.cyberscoop.com/ios-zero-day-zerodium-high-supply/>

> Yes, Apple was late to the bug bounty program and it still goes very much
> against how they think of the company.

Apple doesn't give a shit about testing their products for bugs.
Apple cares about their profits - which they maintain with advertising.

Why should Apple test for bugs when you _believe_ the advertising?

> These things have to be around
> long enough to replace the institutional mindset that prevented them
> being implemented in the first place, but at least Apple isn't sitting
> on them for years and years and then saying "Yeah, fuck you all, we're
> not fixing that. Not now, not ever. Suck it."

You do realize this latest zero-click zero-day bug is a rehash of an old one
that Apple _knew_ about and let slip _back_ into their code, right?
--
Nobody is as gullible as these customers who believe everything Apple says.

Am 14.09.21 um 21:45 schrieb badgolferman:
> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
>> No "back door" was proposed. Again, it being labeled such doesn't make
>> it such.

(Browne's arrogant bullshit snipped)

> I guess it all comes down to how you want to look at it. You are willing to
> believe anything Apple tells you despite ample evidence they are not always
> honest…and I would rather trust my own intuition and deductive reasoning of
> what is bound to happen based on past experience.

I very much agree. Apple wants to introduce a backdoor and with the use
of iCloud there is no way to opt out. By definition a backdoor.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

Am 14.09.21 um 22:55 schrieb Alan Browne:
> On 2021-09-14 15:45, badgolferman wrote:
>> I guess it all comes down to how you want to look at it. You are willing to
>> believe anything Apple tells you despite ample evidence they are not always
>> honest…and I would rather trust my own intuition and deductive reasoning of
>> what is bound to happen based on past experience.
>
> What have they done that was deliberately dishonest?

Yes. Apple lies in many areas. Apple has zero credibility anymore after
this disaster with the CSAM-backdoor.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

Am 14.09.21 um 22:06 schrieb nospam:
> In article <shqv5b$qq$1@dont-email.me>, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> "Apple also has a massive backlog of bugs that it hasn¹t fixed,
>> according to the former employee and a current employee, who also spoke
>> on the condition of anonymity because of an NDA."
>
> that describes every software company.

That describes a closed society with the attitude of a secte which also
applies to Google and Microsoft.
Only Open Source is trustworthy.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

In article <shs01s$gtq$1@dont-email.me>, Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch>
wrote:

> Apple wants to introduce a backdoor and with the use
> of iCloud there is no way to opt out.

wrong.

there are multiple ways to opt-out of csam checking, plus imessage is
opt *in* and only for kids, neither of which are backdoors.

> By definition a backdoor.

nope. read the definition again.

In article <shs0p1$jc2$1@dont-email.me>, Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch>
wrote:

> >> "Apple also has a massive backlog of bugs that it hasn1t fixed,
> >> according to the former employee and a current employee, who also spoke
> >> on the condition of anonymity because of an NDA."
> >
> > that describes every software company.
>
> That describes a closed society with the attitude of a secte which also
> applies to Google and Microsoft.

and every other software company.

> Only Open Source is trustworthy.

it's not about trust, but about bugs.

you obviously don't do any software development.

open source software is generally the buggiest since there is no
motivation to fix anything beyond 'good enough'. btdtgts.

there are the occasional exceptions, but they're just that, exceptions.

Am 15.09.21 um 07:58 schrieb nospam:
> In article <shs01s$gtq$1@dont-email.me>, Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch>
> wrote:
>
>> Apple wants to introduce a backdoor and with the use
>> of iCloud there is no way to opt out.
>
> wrong.
>
> there are multiple ways to opt-out of csam checking, plus imessage is
> opt *in* and only for kids, neither of which are backdoors.

Wrong again.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

Am 15.09.21 um 07:59 schrieb nospam:
> In article <shs0p1$jc2$1@dont-email.me>, Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch>
> wrote:
>
>>>> "Apple also has a massive backlog of bugs that it hasn1t fixed,
>>>> according to the former employee and a current employee, who also spoke
>>>> on the condition of anonymity because of an NDA."
>>>
>>> that describes every software company.
>>
>> That describes a closed society with the attitude of a secte which also
>> applies to Google and Microsoft.
>
> and every other software company.
>
>> Only Open Source is trustworthy.
>
> it's not about trust, but about bugs.

If you cannot see the connex a discussion is futile.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote
> badgolferman wrote
>> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote

>>> No "back door" was proposed. Again, it being labeled such doesn't make
>>> it such.
>
> (Browne's arrogant bullshit snipped)
>
>> I guess it all comes down to how you want to look at it. You are willing
>> to
>> believe anything Apple tells you despite ample evidence they are not
>> always
>> honest…and I would rather trust my own intuition and deductive reasoning
>> of
>> what is bound to happen based on past experience.
>
> I very much agree. Apple wants to introduce a backdoor and with the use
> of iCloud there is no way to opt out. By definition a backdoor.

Nothing even remotely like a backdoor in fact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backdoor_(computing)

On Tue, 14 Sep 2021 13:33:41 -0700, sms wrote:

> <snip>
>
>> The reason iOS is so insecure is simply that Apple doesn't invest in iOS QA.
>
> Not sure that throwing more money at software testing would address the
> problem. It's hard to find these bugs until the software is out being
> used by millions of people.

And testing is not very effective at identifying bugs.

In message <shs0p1$jc2$1@dont-email.me> Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
> Am 14.09.21 um 22:06 schrieb nospam:
>> In article <shqv5b$qq$1@dont-email.me>, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "Apple also has a massive backlog of bugs that it hasn¹t fixed,
>>> according to the former employee and a current employee, who also spoke
>>> on the condition of anonymity because of an NDA."
>>
>> that describes every software company.

> That describes a closed society with the attitude of a secte which also
> applies to Google and Microsoft.
> Only Open Source is trustworthy.

Yeah, because open source never has critical bugs, right?

What a stupid ignorant thing to say, and completely absurd.

--
"You never really understand a person until you see things from his
point of view, until you climb inside of his skin and walk around
in it."

In message <shs01s$gtq$1@dont-email.me> Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
> Am 14.09.21 um 21:45 schrieb badgolferman:
>> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
>>> No "back door" was proposed. Again, it being labeled such doesn't make
>>> it such.

> (Browne's arrogant bullshit snipped)

>> I guess it all comes down to how you want to look at it. You are willing to
>> believe anything Apple tells you despite ample evidence they are not always
>> honest…and I would rather trust my own intuition and deductive reasoning of
>> what is bound to happen based on past experience.

> I very much agree. Apple wants to introduce a backdoor and with the use
> of iCloud there is no way to opt out. By definition a backdoor.

Only if you have made-up a heretofore unknown definition of "back door".

--
'You're wizards!' she [Esk] screamed. 'Bloody well wizz!' --Equal
Rites

In message <shs2b3$mfa$7@dont-email.me> Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
> Am 15.09.21 um 07:58 schrieb nospam:
>> In article <shs01s$gtq$1@dont-email.me>, Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Apple wants to introduce a backdoor and with the use
>>> of iCloud there is no way to opt out.
>>
>> wrong.
>>
>> there are multiple ways to opt-out of csam checking, plus imessage is
>> opt *in* and only for kids, neither of which are backdoors.

> Wrong again.

Back door: noun
* a feature or defect of a computer system that allows
surreptitious unauthorized access to data.

-- The Oxford Dictionary of English (British) and the New Oxford
American Dictionary.

Please note "surreptitious" "unauthorized" and "access".

--
"Kill yourself and roll a rogue. We'll wait"

In message <shs07d$gtq$2@dont-email.me> Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
> Am 14.09.21 um 22:55 schrieb Alan Browne:
>> On 2021-09-14 15:45, badgolferman wrote:
>>> I guess it all comes down to how you want to look at it. You are willing to
>>> believe anything Apple tells you despite ample evidence they are not always
>>> honest…and I would rather trust my own intuition and deductive reasoning of
>>> what is bound to happen based on past experience.
>>
>> What have they done that was deliberately dishonest?

> Yes. Apple lies in many areas.

You were asked for specific examples.

> Apple has zero credibility anymore after this disaster with the
> CSAM-backdoor.

Oh really? What part of that was a lie? Be specific.

--
It would be a pretty good bet that the gods of a world like this
probably do not play chess and indeed this is the case. In fact
no gods anywhere play chess. They haven't got the imagination.
Gods prefer simple, vicious games, where you Do Not Achieve
Transcendence but Go Straight To Oblivion; a key to the
understanding of all religions is that a god's idea of amusement
is Snakes and Ladders with greased rungs.