Now sure, you could answer that they are doing it better than others and you may be perfectly right, but is it really the way we want to solve it? Gossiping on every company on how often they update their software?
Now sure, you could answer that they are doing it better than others and you may be perfectly right, but is it really the way we want to solve it? Gossiping on every company on how often they update their software?
That's just not possible if you value security at all.
And even if it did, it would take so long to develop that it would never get released before it was already too old to be useful.
I am not suggesting anything that would increase development time, in fact it is the opposite. Having to explicitly support multiple platforms is hell for both developers AND users
You sounds like a salesperson telling a dev "why didn't you make our software bug free and vulnerability free????"
You're free to use Windows XP and a Nokia 3310.
Could you explain me why?
I am not saying that developer should simply make software bug free, I know that this is impossible, I however believe that you could heavily reduce friction point by simply having less code, and reducing the software reliance on the hardware/OS
Monolithic projects like Android prevents it from happening, you have to depend on that huge codebase to run any software, and as every software must follow Android update path, you need to continuously update your hardware
Well for starters bug and vulnerabilities. Hundred of millions/or even billions of devices are hackable without that much effort, why? Because people use outdated versions of their software.
>Monolithic projects like Android prevents it from happening, you have to depend on that huge codebase to run any software,
You could say the same about any decent OS.
If you want no updates and don't care about features, get a Nokia 3310.
>you need to continuously update your hardware
No one is preventing you from using a 10 yo device with hundreds of vulnerabilities and 500mb of ram.