Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
> Philip TAYLOR (Webmaster, Ret'd) wrote:
>
>> Justin, your answers are always helpful, constructive and
>> non-confrontational : please accept my replies (below) in the same
>> vein --
>>
>> Justin Wood (Callek) wrote:
>>
>>> ... SeaMonkey 2.0.14 is VULNERABLE to web attacks/exploits,
>>> including ones actively being exploited as we speak.
>>>
>> I did not suggest otherwise. But it was just as vulnerable on the
>> day that it was released, and to suggest otherwise is grossly
>> irresponsible.
>
> Speaking of hyperbole... ;-)
I'm sorry, that is /not/ hyperbole : it is a statement of fact.
>
> SM 2.0.14, like any software product, was safest on the day it was released.
> As time passes, the bad guys continue to develop new exploits, and both good
> guys and bad guys discover holes they didn't know about on day one. The equal
> vulnerability of which you speak is a theoretical abstraction; what matters
> is practical reality. A samurai was exactly as skillful and dangerous the day
> before firearms were introduced into Japan as he was the day afterward, but
> he suddenly became vulnerable to their attack, and the emperor could no
> longer rely on him for protection. With no deterioration of his skills
> whatsoever, he became grossly inferior to the state of the art.
>
That could be quite adequately paraphrased in the popup, but the
present text is misleading and plays on the FUD principle. I continue
to believe and maintain that Seamonkey should describe the
situation using neutral language, and not seek to suggest that
Seamonkey 2.0.14 "is no longer protected against online attacks."
It /is/ protected, just as it was protected on the day that it was
released; to suggest otherwise is palpably dishonest, and not what
I expect from those associated with the Seamonkey project.
In the same vein, I am very disturbed to see that Seamonkey now reports
itself (in the User-Agent field) as "Firefox/6.0.2" (amongst other,
more honest, claims); it is, and should be proud to be, "SeaMonkey/2.3.3",
and should not seek to pretend that it is that which it is not. Seamonkey
2.0.14 claimed, with complete accuracy, to be :
"Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.19)
Gecko/20110420 SeaMonkey/2.0.14"
Seamonkey 2.3.3 claims to be
"Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:6.0.2) Gecko/20110902 Firefox/6.0.2
SeaMonkey/2.3.3"
which it is not.
For the whole of my life, I have believed in telling the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth; I am deeply saddened to find that
a product in which I have previously had complete confidence, and which
I have previously recommended unreservedly to others, is now prepared to lie.
Philip Taylor
_______________________________________________
support-seamonkey mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
