Query about parasitic firefox file

[Colin Law]

On 23 March 2018 at 19:06, Tom H <tomh0665 at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 7:09 AM, Colin Law <clanlaw at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 23 March 2018 at 09:38, Tom H <tomh0665 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 1:36 AM, Bret Busby <bret.busby at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> A significant difference exists, between security updates, and the
> >>> sabotage that was done to firefox in the change from v56 to v57.
> >>
> >> For browsers, all updates are security updates...
> >
> > Possibly all updates *include* security updates, but they may also
> > include feature changes which some users may like, others may hate.
>
> Exactly. Given that all updates contain security updates (even if they
> only add up to 1% of the update), they're all security updates.
>

I said 'possibly' and you said 'exactly, given that..' which is not what I
said at all.  Also your statement is illogical. You suggest that because an
update *contains* a security update then it *is* a security update, which
doesn't make sense.  Possibly what you are suggesting is that updates that
include security fixes are therefore security updates. In that case Bret
was just using the terms loosely in exactly the same way as yourself, so
maybe what he meant was "A significant difference exists between security
fixes and the sabotage ...".

Colin



>
> --
> ubuntu-users mailing list
> ubuntu-users at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/
> mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users/attachments/20180323/ee14fcf3/attachment.html>