... I don't know that this omission is glaring.
If it looks like it, feels like it and smells like it, it probably is.
Consider this: Mac OS X 10.9.2 contains many update items other than the SSL fix, and was delayed at the last minute to include the latter as well. Focusing on that 10.9-specific SSL fix ignores these other 10.9.2 components, several of which also apply to previous OS X versions but were only made available for Lion and Mountain Lion (as Jon noted). Time will tell if a similar security update for Snowy will be pushed out later, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
First,
the latest ball-scores, which show that Snowy's user-base now surpasses those of both Lion
and Mounty.
We're three versions of OS X and two versions of Safari down the road from Snowy, and that, combined with Apple's infernal secrecy, makes it pretty durn difficult to draw any conclusions about how, if at all, the recent updates relate to it.
Question: What does everybody think Apple would have done had the recent security scare extended back to Snowy? Would they have just laughed at close to 20% of their user-base or seen a need for accommodation?
And in the same vein, do you think Apple would have remained silent if the recent security updates included anything critical to Snowy?
The point I'm trying to make is that everybody is relying on history in a situation in which history is in something of a shambles. (Anybody remember
Hari Seldon's appearance in
Second Foundation?)
I'll stand pat on my guess that Apple will not have truly dropped support for Snowy until its users can no longer sync their iOS devices without upgrading, and I'll further guess that they're playing the situation by ear, and very close-to-the-vest...committing in neither direction and leaving all options open.
Hmmm... Maybe there's something to be said for their
"infernal secrecy"?
