Anyway, I was talking about being inquiring. When you look at that list, surely, some questions do rise. “Why should I worry about all of that to read three paragraphs of text on some webpage?” “Which actions have made it so?” “What should be done to fix it?” Right?
Yes, a 3 months old release of chrome is not suited to use day to day. I link all the known and published CVE on chrome, but if you want to nickpick you could "just" check those which start with 2023-*.
Why does displaying a piece of information that would fit onto a single 80×25 text mode screen absolutely require exposing to a third party a potentially (and, as mentioned, effectively) vulnerable WebHID functionality (which is non-standard, and seemingly only exists to make ChromeOS less mediocre operating system), various WebGL libraries and wrappers, ever-growing Javascript and CSS engines, and thousands of other entities? Someone who grants the whole internet access to local service ports by not using a firewall is considered a fool, but at the same time “non-foolish” “security conscious” people start their browsers, and see no problem in all the services embedded in them.
Isn't relying on a constant (and never ending) stream of updates from white knights in the holy castle in the manner you describe just a subscription model without a defined price?
Who controls the Web? Is controlling the web client enough for that? What benefits the endless rat race might give to them?
How come there's a hidden dependence on corporate products and their support cycles even in the process of using seemingly “open” technologies, say, for government sites and services? Is “I have no idea, my code absolutely requires latest libraries” a valid excuse?
Can mindless acceptance and circular finger-pointing between web developers, library authors, browser developers, and users solve these problems? What needs to be done?
Updates for the sake of updates is not a passive, neutral status quo. It benefits certain participants (both the ones on top of the power hierarchy capable of rotating the hamster wheel faster and faster, and the ones on the bottom, who, in accordance with this or that fashion, slap together something that is not supposed to work at all unless you update everything) while others pay the price. And it's the path of least resistance that people choose.
In the end, it's just marketing. If you can add a couple of commas here and there to make the whole thing crumble, which allows you to announce “newer better version with support for new technology, etc.”, it's way easier than explaining what you change, and why, to the inquiring public. The IT public, as we can see, is pathetically neutered, and acts like careless kids in the free-for-all amusement park.
Also, the author can totally get Linux with the leanest DE he can still stomach, and have all the fresh software. Core 2 Duo with 4 GB of memory is still a decent system, especially with an SSD. However, his problem is NOT the software, his problem is that the websites he uses stop working.