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.
Considering there are no known viruses that run in Mac OS X, he's absolutely right. And Panther is going to rule :D
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.
Please, "unbiased", my ass. This guy will gush with praise about any product that's easy to use and free of bugs. Every time he reviews something with flaws, he feels like pointing them out.
Sometimes I read his column and all he talks about is "oh, this program was fun to use", or "I didn't like this music player because it was hard to operate and the battery cover broke off". Like any of that matters.
His constant annoying praise for Apple products is clearly due to the quality of the product and it's usefulness to the average consumer, and not due to any objective standard like how big Apple's cash position is or how man deals they've cut with other computer companies.
This kind of yellow journalism must be put to an end.
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
So if one of the main arguments about why Macs are so virus free is their small market share, should we really keep telling people to switch, since a growing market share will make Macs a bigger target?
Also, is it wise to keep pointing out so loudly that its so hard to write a virus for OS X and that none currently exist? I mean, it sounds kind of pompous and arrogant...like an invitation to try write one?
fuck you.
>So if one of the main arguments about why Macs are so
>virus free is their small market share, should we really
>keep telling people to switch, since a growing market
>share will make Macs a bigger target?
How much would it have to grow before it becomes a likely target? A factor of 10? 20?
That said, there are two main reasons why viruses on the mac are less common:
1) Mail.app makes it more difficult to launch an application sent to you directly and warns you. It doesn't keep you from doing so, but its not as easy (or defaulted, like it used to be on Outlook).
2) Better security model. The damage one app can cause, even in an admin account, is limited unless it's given extra permissions, which requires giving it a password.
>Also, is it wise to keep pointing out so loudly that its so
>hard to write a virus for OS X and that none currently
>exist? I mean, it sounds kind of pompous and
>arrogant...like an invitation to try write one?
The question would then be, providing you (or whoever) could actually write it, "how long would it stay in the wild."
The low marketshare means that even if you could get it to be as infectious as a virus on windows (same infectious characteristics) it wouldn't have a large pool of systems that it could infect, this means that it is more likely to fizzle than become an issue.
Even providing you could get it work and people to run it.
Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
There's an old Microsoft joke of an error message that says:
With that said: heterogeneous computing environments, whether within small networks or on the global network increase security.
But the point is that even if it is a target, it is much harder to write a virus for OS X at this point in time.
- Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
the comparison of online music stores, does this mean that the WSJ might actually like us now? That perhaps they'll influence tech-ignorant business sorts to stop assuming that the Microsoft way is the only way. That would be helpful.
Compare Apache's webserver market share to that of Microsoft IIS. Compare the number of exploitable vulnerabilities in those products, and the severity of the results.
Compare Sendmail's SMTP server market share to that of Microsoft Exchange. Compare the number of exploitable vulnerabilities in those products, and the severity of the results.
Compare Oracle's (or IBM's) SQL RDBMS market share to that of Microsoft SQL Server. Compare the number of exploitable vulnerabilities in those products, and the severity of the results.
Deduction: Microsoft manages to lead in introducing exploitable vulnerabilities to market segments, with severe results, even in segments where they do not enjoy market share leadership.
Now that's innovation! :)
To be blunt and honest, Microsoft designed and maintained its operating system product(s) in ways that failed to take security (and multiple users, and networking, and...) into consideration for far too long, and now finds itself in the unenviable position of being the only operating system vendor most people have even heard of that doesn't have a properly secure operating system.
-Dan (whose new "cheesegrater" G5 has fewer holes than Windows)
I think the key feature of the OS X security model is that the root account is disabled by default. Doing admin by sudo instead of su seems much safer. I agree wholeheartedly with the above post and would like to add that I find the continual challenging for admin passwords very reassuring. Fair enough, passwords are only as secure as you keep them but I am fairly confident, using OSX, that no one can get my password without me specifically telling them (which isn't going to happen).
First off, the parent is not flamebait. It's unfairly moderated.
That said,
For the individual user, opportunity cost, lost productivity, and essentially waste of resources are far less of a noticeable factor than for MegaCorp Inc. I should know, I'm building an incident response team at a large international bank--they blew millions and millions either preparing for or responding to shit that never should have happened in the first place. Check the CSI/FBI computer crime survey, Gartner, whatnot--you'll find absolutely stunning figures. Whether they're the result of underlying flaws in Windows, or just of a higher suscepbility of that OS to attack because it's further spread I won't argue--I have made up my mind on that already.
Furthermore, while I have no issue with your general comments, there's one important thing you're missing--vulnerabilities in Linux/BSD tend (note careful choice of words) to be results of configuration errors, or of vulnerabilities in software running on top of the OS.
I just had this discussion with a colleague recently--your fundamental difference, compared to Windows is that (a) the existence of Linux workstation in a corporate network does not require you automatically to run vulnerable services as part of the core OS (vulnerabilities in OpenSSH notwithstanding, it's a far more secure mechanism for administering distributed boxes than mapping a C: drive via RPC), and (b) if you do have to run service, I can't think of many (and if you mention NFS, I'll throw a shoe at you) which cannot somehow have their running privileges limited (run as different user, chroot, jail, whatever.)
Of course, if you allow remote root logins, that's your own problem.
Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
I do a PS2 + Mac myself. The way I figure it, the overlap on those two particular machines, game-wise, is a fantastic match.
Consider: we have watched the consoles eat a significant portion of the once-dominant PC game market. Consoles are custom game machines, that enjoy even better mass market economics than PCs, that have no compatibility problems or patches to speak of, and are usually the same approximate cost as the video card alone would be for the PC.
Most kinds of games work better on a console, especially with the console controller. There are two exceptions to this: 3rd-person shooters, which anyone half-serious knows you must use a mouse for; and Real Time Strategy games like WarCraft 3, which need the mouse and the keyboard... usually a multibutton mouse too.
The Mac gets almost all the big 3rd-person shooters ported (Quake3, Wolfenstein, Medal of Honor, etc), as well as many of the RTS games (WC3, Age of Whatevers, etc).
So a Mac + PS2 provides a pretty vast array of gaming. Not quite as vast as a PC of course, but if you want OS X the rest of the time...
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
perhaps they should stick their nose to 'Wall Street' stuff and let sites like Ars[arstechnica.com] to provide factual review
:-)
You mean, quote, "Ars Technica - The PC enthusiast's resource", end quote? Sounds like an exellent place to find some unbiased information on Apple
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...