Christian Brabandt <cblists@256bit.org> said (on 2024/12/03):
> Scroll down a bit to https://www.vim.org/download.php#pc you should see
> your download link there.
Ah, I see it now, and the bit now added to the top. Thank you.
I really don't want to sound demanding, but out of genuine
curiosity, why retain the vulnerable 9.1.0000 links at all? I
would fear most users might navigate the page like I did:
- "popular", "Windows", "Unix", "Mac"
okay, I'm on Windows...
- "32-bit installer", "64-bit installer", "32-bit zip", "64-bit zip"
okay, I'm 64-bit, so click 64-bit installer
Or similarly for "okay, I'll go with what's popular,
current-stable sounds good... not sure why there's multiple
stable links but I'll just grab the first x64 one".
The user ends up with a vulnerable install, without realizing.
Wouldn't it make more sense to bury the vulnerable installer
links behind a "archive" or "previous releases" or let users
find them from the directory links?
--
--
You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_use" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vim_use+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/vim_use/Z08-BSAUdEfZmX8H%40dot.t41t.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment