Software updater snuck in a package that is unwanted

[Ken D'Ambrosio]

I've been watching from afar, considering whether or not to ixnay the 
thread, but have decided to comment as well.  Bret: I'm sorry, man.  But 
sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.  I play a game with myself when I see 
something I don't understand: I try to figure out why it was done that 
way, and NOT assume that it was merely some bizarre Big Brother attack.  
Rebooting, for example: did you know that an open file remains open 
*even if deleted*?  And will continue to be read/writeable until the 
reflink count drops to zero?  This is what can happen to libraries that 
are being read, etc., which would make an upgrade not really an upgrade 
-- and by far the easiest way to ensure that all reflink counts drop to 
zero is a reboot.

This is just one example.  And if you've been arguing that patched 
software is somehow magically less secure than unpatched, un-upgraded 
software, then, sir, you are -- with all due respect -- an uninformed 
user.  These people have done their level best to try to help you on 
your relatively Quixotic approach to security, and you really aren't 
paying them mind.  I'm unsure why, but your approach will neither garner 
respect nor adherents.

Rules of thumb:
1) Asking questions is great -- but listen to the answers.
2) Debate is fine... to a point.  But when essentially everyone else is 
disagreeing, it's probably time to objectively consider why that might 
be.
3) E-mail lists, as have been noted, have certain purposes; please try 
to respect which list should get which topic.

I wish you luck as you use and learn from Ubuntu, and computers in 
general.  But I also recommend an open mind -- having one's mind made up 
in advance is never the path to knowledge.

Sincerely,

-Ken


On 2017-10-21 06:56, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 18:38:39 +0800, Bret Busby wrote:
>> But then, you appear to be more concerned with making personal
>> attacks, rather than listening to what people other than yourself,
>> have to say.
> 
> Bret, others and I tried to help you a lot, after listening to your
> abstruse claims, but you didn't understand what we tried to explain.
> Perhaps not all of our explanations are good, since we are not
> necessarily professional teachers. However, without doubts you do not
> have the abilities to form an opinion about security risks, what ever
> source you consult to form your opinion. This is not a personal attack.
> Note, I'm one of those subscribers who is still willing to read your
> mails, several subscribers ignore your replies, you e.g. already was
> added to a kill filter.