Slashdot Mirror
Wall Street Journal On The Switch
An anonymous reader writes "Walt Mossberg, the Wall Street Journal's personal technology columnist, has long appreciated Macintosh, in a very unbiased, but still probably slightly business-oriented way. Today, in honor of tomorrow's "Panther" release, he has a very positive article in favor of "consumers and small businesses" switching for peace of mind. "If you're tired of the virus wars, the Mac can be an island of serenity.""
I own 2 macs and a pc. I prefer my mac for my research mainly because of the GUI and Unix underpinnings. Since I do a lot of coding for my biological modeling work, the built in compilers come in handy. Plus, I like the fact that I do not have to worry about viri. I'll always keep a pc around for certain things, especially gaming, but my mac goes with me for work. It is a simple matter of personal choice. I personally would hate to have to give up my 12" powerbook.
I think the Mossberg Article makes the point when it is contrasted with the article he wrote last week about which pc one should purchase. In that article he advises about the feature-set one should look for and how to best make use of the digital life apple has been attempting to push for years. I remember a Steve Jobs MacWorld Keynote where he introduced iLife and another where he makes it clear that apple will innovate its way out of the bad times. I guess everyone else in the industry is ready to follow the leader. I think the fact that this week's article is selling the point that, "Hey, as you are downloading this week's M$ critical update, you should know there is a platform where people are not targeted nor is this platform flawed in the foundation of its design." I have always thought life would be better if we worked on a *nix platform at work and when home to a Mac. One could make the argument that it is now in print.
For games I have my ps2, and my fastest box is this laptop a P4-2000m so I have been I thinking about what I should do for a workstation.
Assuming neither KDE, GNOME, or someother desktop become as freindly as OS X, my next computer will be an apple.
I read that article and I wonder whether it's time to be more specific when it comes to calling something a virus. Yes, often times the behavior can be annoying either way, but the viruses that most Windows machines are exposed to today are dramatically different than the few macro-viruses that macs are succeptible to.
A trojan horse or something that can slowly kill your hard disk is much more severe than something that adds characters to your Excel spreadsheets.
It makes me feel that the Symantec quote is more FUD than anything else. Aside from that, I enjoyed the read.
As a long time Mac user, I personally learned nothing new in the article, but it's good to get that info into wider circulation. Particularly the sort of people who read the WSJ, influential but not tech savvy.
"Common Sense Ain't" -Unknown
Windows is riddled with security flaws, and new ones turn up regularly. It is increasingly susceptible to all kinds of viruses, malicious Trojan horse programs and spyware. As a result, Windows users have been forced to spend more of their time and money supporting their computers.
..and this is different to Apple Software Update how exactly? Yes people target Windows but that is simply because it is so widespread. Windows / OS X / Linux all require regular patches. This is not a practice limited to Microsoft.
ANY computer is susceptible to a virus written for it. Money? The last time I checked security patches were free.
Almost every week, they are supposed to install patches to the already patchy operating system to plug these security holes. And every few months, it seems, Windows users must quake in fear as some horrible new virus is created by the international criminal class that constantly targets Windows.
But for consumers and small businesses, there's a simple way out of this endless morass: Buy an Apple Macintosh computer. There are no viruses on the Macintosh's excellent two-year-old operating system, called OS X. And the Mac is a terrific computer -- as good as, or better than, Windows for the typical computing tasks important to mainstream users.
No viruses.. Yet. And typical computing tasks? Linux can do all that too - for free.
It isn't impossible to write a virus for the Mac. The system isn't impenetrable. Mac users should still use antivirus software. But any virus or security problem that does emerge on the Mac is likely to be much less serious than the Windows security crisis. "Mac OS X hasn't had any viruses since the OS was launched," says Bill Rosenkrantz, the head of Macintosh products at Symantec, the big antivirus firm. "It's more difficult to attack the Apple system than Windows."
So, first we have how there are no viruses for OSX yet we should still run anti-virus? So what sort of signature library is this antivirus system going to have if there are no viruses?
So, if you're a Windows user, you could sit tight, apply all the patches, worry about all the viruses and hope that the spring's Service Pack will solve most of the security problems without breaking other key features of Windows or interfering with programs you use.
Er.. you mean like that OSX 10.2.8 update completely breaking many people's OS X install? Like that you mean?
Or, if the security issues are important to you, you could just buy a Mac when you shop for your next computer.
You see many PC hardware users dont have to shop for a new computer because upgrading the old one is possible. OS X is only "secure" until people start targetting it.
Here's why the Mac is so much less susceptible to viruses:
First, the Mac OS X operating system is built on Unix, an industrial-strength operating system used in business, science and education. And OS X doesn't enable users -- or hackers who hijack user accounts -- to alter certain core files and features of its Unix underpinnings. By contrast, Windows XP users are given "full administrator" privileges that viruses and hackers can usurp to do damage.
Log into a Mac as Root (with the chosen admin password as default) and you can modify anything you damn well please. Not making the root account obvious to users does nothing to stop a hacker with a buffer overflow exploit such as the recent BSD (which OS X is based on) SSH vulnerability for example.
Also, Apple ships every Mac with all the communications "ports," or conduits that listen for commands over networks, closed. On Windows, some of these ports are left open.
OMFG a port is open!!! Quick quick tell every web server admin they have port 80 open! They obviously are going to be hacked... because a PORT IS OPEN!!! Get a grip.
In addition, Macs constitute such a tiny share of the world's computers t
Mossberg's always liked Macs. Sure, he's had gripes before,
all of them pretty much justifiable, but he's always been one
of those straight-shooters that's been able to see around
the "Apple is dying" bullshit a lot of his peers loved to spew.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine...
A big problem brewing in the wings is the continued use of .SIT Stuffit Archives on OSX. .SIT has no provisions for the x (01) bit on files, so Stuffit Expanders version 7 and 8.0.1 set the x bit on every file. This makes it much easier to launch the theoretical mac virus.
.sitx format that handles this properly, and there's little that you can't do with an OSX .dmg image natively (just drag&drop onto Disc Copy). Panther will make a .zip for you from the Finder, although I'm not sure how it handles forks and file attributes.
Aladdin has created a
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
So what you're saying is that a good exploit only needs to be a trojan that runs at user-level (no manipulation of anything critical) and asks the admin password (which everybody is so used to handing out all the time). Getting regular users used to using sudo a lot isn't necessarily a good thing.
A Good Intro to NetBS
Not really. Representatives from anti virus companies and security experts have stated that it is much harder to write viruses for OS X.
It also has been out for several years. Don't you think that any enterprising visur writer would have written one by now?
- Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...