"We're sorry we've solve you shitty products but will replace it at our expense" is actually doing something.
The ideal response in my mind would be: "We're sorry - so here's how to unlock the boot-loader and here are third-party open source firmware providers that we tested for you."
The student also revealed his secrets after he was caught – the password was the teacher's last name, and the teacher had typed it in in full view of the students. The student said many other students used these administrators' passwords (their teachers' last names) so they can screen-share and video chat with other students. The student was briefly held in a nearby detention center, and the county Sheriff warned that other teenagers caught doing the same thing will "face the same consequences."
I'm sticking to really free stuff now.
Is it reasonable to expect browser makers to hold their own in an arms race against exploits?
The problem is that browsers are trying to become an OS - with all the complexities associated with one.
If we want back to a world where HTML was mostly about content -- that could be displayed in everything down to things like the Lynx browser -- they coudl be made secure.
People wanted more, though -- so they decided to allow extensions like Java Applets, Flash Plugins, and ActiveX controls. Obviously more complex, those were not surprisingly insecure.
So now people decide to take all the complexity and insecurity and build it directly into the browser itself?!? WTF.
Makes me miss gopher clients. Maybe we should go back.