Slashdot Mirror


Intel Head Recommends Apple

pboulang writes "noted in this article in the WSJ: Pressed about security by Mr. Mossberg, Mr. Otellini had a startling confession: He spends an hour a weekend removing spyware from his daughter's computer. And when further pressed about whether a mainstream computer user in search of immediate safety from security woes ought to buy Apple Computer Inc.'s Macintosh instead of a Wintel PC, he said, "If you want to fix it tomorrow, maybe you should buy something else.""

705 comments

  1. Linux? by nukem996 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why not Linux? No spyware, or viruss to worry about. Its secure and stable. You can use what ever hardware you want. Maybe Apple is going to use intel hardware...

    1. Re:Linux? by iswm · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Maybe he just prefers Apple?

      We should just be glad his advocating the use of something that ISN'T Windows, not upset that he isn't advocating the use of Linux.

      --
      Buckethead
    2. Re:Linux? by MoonBuggy · · Score: 3, Informative

      Maybe Apple is going to use intel hardware...

      It's already been speculated upon, although not confirmed by either party.

      As for Linux, it's a damn good OS, very stable and you've gotta love the OSS ideal. Regular home users, however are either not willing or not able (I'm really not sure which) to use it - that's changing, but in terms of a literally plug and play solution that's out there right now you can't beat a Mac Mini.

    3. Re:Linux? by Mahou · · Score: 1, Insightful

      not really.
      and why does it take him so long to get rid of spyware, does he try to do it manually? and why every weekend? he needs to slap his daughter and tell her to quit doing whatever the hell she's doin on her computer

      --
      if i'm not immortal, what's the point of living?
      ...te?
    4. Re:Linux? by As+Seen+On+VT · · Score: 0
      What you don't realise is that like Microsoft, we have also been running a competition to see who can make the biggest headline promoting our computers.

      This was a close one to call, but Mr. Otellini has beaten out the new Pope for the prize - dinner with me and Steve tomorrow night!

      Congratulations to all contestants.

    5. Re:Linux? by jacquesm · · Score: 0, Redundant

      in other news, Apple rumoured to have ported OS/X to intel...

    6. Re:Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      He would also like a GUI that his daughter can use. That means no Linux. Sorry, but it's just the truth.

    7. Re:Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because Linux on the desktop is butt ass ugly and kludgy for the average user. I can use it for most things at work, but at home it's OS X.

    8. Re:Linux? by lukewarmfusion · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because unless you're a reasonably tech-minded person, Linux is too hard.

      My wife's grandparents have Windows XP. They called recently to ask if they should buy this new "Tiger OS" they saw on the news.

      They get confused when AOL moves the "Email Photos" icon around.

      They'd be fine on an Apple machine, because it's hard to screw things up. With Linux, you're automatically at a disadvantage - it's hard to NOT screw things up.

      Nowadays, when they have problems I tell them to call Gateway support.

      Linux is a great choice for lots of people and for lots of situations. But not for everyone.
      Consider the guy's daughter in the story - he cleans spyware from her computer on a regular basis. Will she be smart enough to handle anything but the most idiot-proof OS?

    9. Re:Linux? by magicRob · · Score: 0

      Technically OSX sits on Darwin, which is, if i'm not mistaken, a flavour of Linux... Hell it's even open source...

      --
      Join the Digital TV discussion @ http://forums.dvbowners.com
    10. Re:Linux? by MrAnnoyanceToYou · · Score: 1

      All these naysayers, and yet every time I ask after a usable linux, someone says, "Ubuntu! Ubuntu! Ubuntu!" It makes me wonder.

    11. Re:Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Darwin is based on BSD, not Linux.

    12. Re:Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    13. Re:Linux? by IntergalacticWalrus · · Score: 1

      Suggesting Linux instead of OSX in an apple.slashdot.org article? Anti-Linux zealots incoming in 3, 2, 1...

    14. Re:Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Why not linux?

      Because is his daughter's computer... remember, girls can't use linux

    15. Re:Linux? by IntergalacticWalrus · · Score: 1

      No, Darwin is a flavour of BSD. And no, BSD is not a flavour of Linux.

    16. Re:Linux? by uranus65 · · Score: 1

      Slap his daughter?

    17. Re:Linux? by Laurance · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ok, I know Linux is very secure and stable, but at the end of day there just isn't enough easy-to-use software out there for the average end-user. There is no verson of Quickbooks, itunes, or any of the major adobe apps on the market. I know there are many opensorce substitutes for these apps but in the end there not the same.

    18. Re:Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We just got in a new eMac with Tiger today (Our first Tiger machine, I think I'll hold on to it, heh.) The 'setup' screens when you first turn it on asked me for: name, place, and time. It also asked me if I'd like to transfer all of my old user settings and files via firewire from my old Apple machine. After a few minutes I was fully operational and ready to roll out. Even the kindergarten teachers could use it without calling me all day about installing drivers for their obscure printer, camcorder, or activating their projectors.

      Why not Linux? Last time I installed Linux it felt it necessary for me to know my exact vertical and horizontal rates on my cheap off brand no label monitor, I had to know the CLI, and basically it excepts it's users know how to program. I'm sorry, but this is what most people think when they hear Linux, "Insanely difficult to use." not, "Sweet, it's free as in beer, rock solid, fully customizable, and secure!"

      You turn a Mac on, and it works like a dream.

    19. Re:Linux? by CableModemSniper · · Score: 1

      Technically, you are mistaken. Also I like ice cream.

      --
      Why not fork?
    20. Re:Linux? by John+Harrison · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Did you read the article? He didn't mention Apple by name. In fact though the question was about Apple he was careful to answer in a more generic manner. It isn't clear if the question is about the OS or the hardware. Basically this is a non-story. It certainly wasn't the endorsement of Apple that the /. article makes it out to be.

    21. Re:Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny
      Slap his daughter?

      Don't mind if I do.

    22. Re:Linux? by quickbasicguru · · Score: 3, Interesting

      With Linux, you're automatically at a disadvantage - it's hard to NOT screw things up.

      I disagree. With Windows it is easy to screw things up. With Linux, not so.

      Sure, you can screw it up if you have the root password, but why would you give the root password to a child!?! You can do so much as a normal user.

      I think if you had the admin password for a mac, you could screw thing up easily too...

    23. Re:Linux? by vettemph · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >he needs to slap his daughter and tell her to quit.

      He can slap his daughter till she falls over and the root cause of the problem will still have a blue screen. Someone should slap bill gates. That dickwad could actually fix the problem (unlike that little girl you want to slap). She is a victim in a world thats so insane but you don't see it because you are numbed up to the spyware shuffle.

      --
      The government which is strong enough to protect you from everything is strong enough to take everything from you.
    24. Re:Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, Darwin is a flavour of BSD. And no, BSD is not a flavour of Linux.

      I'm sure you know they are both flavors of UNIX (or POSIX (or whatever you like to call it)).

      So what's your point? Just trying to sound stupid?

    25. Re:Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because GNU/Linux is not yet ready for the masses. OS X is ready for anyone to use as it simply works and is very easy to use.

      No matter what you say, one of the problems with Linux is that it is difficult to install programs if they're not in some repository. There have been some solutions to solve this with universal installers such as Zero Install and Autopackage that will make it hassle free for installation, but the Linux community fail to see how this can help them. And commercial software are quite hesitant as they don't want to deal with installation problems on all the different Linux platforms.

      Another problem with Linux is their lack of marketing their software/products, usability, and having a better GUI. There are many good GNU/Linux programmers, but fail to have the knowledge of the three areas, something that Apple are experts at. It's not just about coding software, but having people to help those programmers in these important areas.

      It is no wonder why Trinity College, in Melbourne, Australia, dumped Debian in order to switch to OS X.

      http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;13028 41680;fp;16;fpid;0

    26. Re:Linux? by Gentlewhisper · · Score: 1

      does this have something to do with rumors that apple will switch to intel chips?

    27. Re:Linux? by daniel23 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Maybe Apple is going to use intel hardware...


      or maybe Intel really has another reason to mention Apple, like scaring a distributor which maybe got too much self esteem?
      Ie., Dell?

      --
      605413? Yes, it's a prime.
    28. Re:Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Chocolate and strawberry are both flavours of icecream. That does not mean that chocolate is a flavour of strawberry.

    29. Re:Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      discipline her for going to freaky porn sites or whatever nefarious thing she is doing that causes her computer to get so much spyware

    30. Re:Linux? by breik · · Score: 1

      Well if you really wanted to you could get OSX to run on x86 right now...http://pearpc.sourceforge.net/

    31. Re:Linux? by supabeast! · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because people who aren't technically skilled enough to keep a Windows box free of malware don't know what to do when a Linux install CD doesn't like the cheap hardware in their bargain PCs. They can, however, get a pre-loaded working Mac at Best Buy or Target.

      Until some big retailer starts selling pre-loaded Linux systems, Linux will continue to be out of reach of most mainstream consumers.

    32. Re:Linux? by superdan2k · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah, and you have to be a rocket surgeon to even get over the hump and get the shit working. Joe Average computer user is going to be absolutely fuxored trying to even find, much less install, a Linux distro. (No, this isn't flamebait, this is watching a couple of my siblings make the attempt.)

      --
      blog |
    33. Re:Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like you're a user much like his daughter.

      God, if I only knew which web sites you went to and why you didn't run an antivirus tool and firewall.

    34. Re:Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want OS X to run like a snail.

    35. Re:Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Installing Linux isn't a problem anymore. Just have a look at distros such as Xandros, Linspire, Ubuntu, etc.

      One of the real problems is the installation process of software that is not in a repository.

    36. Re:Linux? by nukem996 · · Score: 1

      I realize that I was just thinking it would be better for Intel to suggest Linux, since they would still have a chance at making money.

    37. Re:Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think if you had the admin password for a mac, you could screw thing up easily too...

      Like in Windows.

      Hmm. Did you just forget it's possible to run Windows in restricted mode? Yes, you may have to install apps as an admin, but for regular "work" on your computer, you don't need to be an admin and NTFS support *gasp* file system level security restrictions.

      It seems like when people start using Windows, they automatically stops trying to keep it secure and starts shouting why they get all the spyware after visiting crackwh0rez.com or opening attachments in spam without antivirus.

    38. Re:Linux? by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Will she be smart enough to handle anything but the most idiot-proof OS?

      That's the point of Linux. The Admin can lock out the user so that they only USE the OS to run applications. They CAN'T screw the system up because they don't have access to do so. THAT'S idiot proof.

      The real concern for the daughter using Linux is whether he favorite app Foo has been ported or copied by an OSS alternative.

      --
      You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
    39. Re:Linux? by nukem996 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Funny, my grandparents had tons of problems with Win 98 and Win XP so I put Fedora Core 3 on their computer, they havnt had a problem since. They were already using Firefox and Thunderbird so for them there really was no difference. I havnt had to come over for an emergency fix since.

    40. Re:Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ummm a properly installed linux machine is easy to use. They shouldn't be installing programs or editing anything anyways. Set it up, give them a user account. Wa-la.....It really is that simple...

    41. Re:Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh please, we shouldn't be glad until everyone is advocating the use of Linux . . .

    42. Re:Linux? by piecewise · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's the point of Linux. The Admin can lock out the user so that they only USE the OS to run applications. They CAN'T screw the system up because they don't have access to do so. THAT'S idiot proof.

      This is what's wrong with the Linux community. What if there's no Admin? What if the only person involved is the primary user him- or herself? What if those grandparents had no one to set it up perfectly for them and ensure they'd only use a web browser? It's just not that simple.

      --
      The next comment I write will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
    43. Re:Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You assume that whoever installed whatever flavor of linux on [random user who clicks yes to spyware]'s computer knew enough to not permit root access for the user on their own computer.

      Honestly... if the system is so hard to use that you need to protect it from yourself through the use of multiple logins... why would it be a better choice than anything else?

      Windows can be setup in the same way.. preventing things from being installed and files from being deleted. Same with OS X. The bottom line... You don't really have to do that in Windows or OSX because they don't present settings that will prevent the PC from booting where you might accidently click on them (or type them...).

      I'm sure someone will rebutt me... and I'm sure there's a setting somewhere... but "search your feelings... you know I'm right" mwhahaha!

      The linux camps need to stop stabilizing the kernel and spend enough time with user interaction until my grandmother can use the calculator without fear of a total meltdown. I don't care how crappy it is... she would have a hell of a time figuring out which MS Word knockoff would work for her and then finding out that they're all 2nd rate. ;) Cya!

    44. Re:Linux? by 64nDh1 · · Score: 1

      Sure it's an option. Knowing nothing about his daughter, and considering the question asked of Otellini could be presumed in relation to her spyware problem, would you give a child a Gentoo x86 install disk and the link to the manual and tell her the benefits of all the different desktop environments she could choose to 'emerge' on her new platform (don't tell her that it's all console based at the start...oh and installing stuff generally isn't done by binaries, and most commands are driven by console/terminal windows, and she'll have to wrap her head around the idea of 'root' and 'sudo'.

      Or give her a pretty OS with an Aqua interface, designed for its own hardware, with a maximum of 5% the number viruses that effect Windows machines, with extensive incorporation of wireless devices, internal speakers (crap as they are, the chime is nice on boot). No need for the terminal, and everything else is intuitive?

      Why push Linux at ever available opportunity? It's good sure. But I don't think it's as user friendly a solution as an iMac. I think your issue would be more clearly expressed if you asked why the WSJ columnist didn't ask 'Why not Linux?', rather than positing a link between Intel and Apple (which I think was a story on the frontpage in recent days) and asking about Otellini's persuasions on the matter?

    45. Re:Linux? by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      I would just give her an Etch-A-Sketch and tell her it's a laptop. To reboot, just tip upside down and shake.

      Note: I don't take credit for this joke. I already saw it in a comic (dilbert?)

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    46. Re:Linux? by softcoder · · Score: 1

      Because if you value your reputation you cannot at this stage honestly recommend a Linux distro to your average user. This applies to RH, Mandrake, SUSE. Don't know about XANDROS since I havent had a chance to test my CD yet. Also there are few outlets where you can go to just buy a Linux computer.

    47. Re:Linux? by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is a situation where there *is* an admin. Dad and daughter. Dad's the head of friggin' INTEL, he might know an admin or two if he's not up to the task himself.

      If you have no admin at your disposal, you better learn how to maintain your operating system. You can't get away from that with ANY computer, even the great and mighty OS X.

      If you don't take care of it, eventually, it WILL break. And then you'll need an admin. A user shouldn't have to learn to do all that simply in order to use a browser, email, mp3 player, and IM client safely.

      --
      You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
    48. Re:Linux? by wza · · Score: 1

      'Maybe Apple is going to use intel hardware...'

      "The rumor that Apple is considering Intel chips for the Mac platform is nonsense. Literally. Non-sense. It makes no sense.
      The rumor that Apple will use chips from Intel instead of its long-standing partner IBM is as old as the Mac platform itself.
      Year after year the rumor keeps popping up. Today's version is in the Wall Street Journal, which means it's getting wide play.
      "The computer maker has been in talks that could lead to a decision soon to use Intel Corp. chips in its Macintosh computer line, industry executives say, a prospect that may shake up the world of computers and software," the WSJ reports.
      But why would Apple switch from IBM, which is kicking ass, to Intel, whose heyday may be over?
      Intel's chip technology trails both IBM's and AMD's. IBM's dual-core processors are a couple of years ahead of Intel's, which is why all three next-generation gaming consoles will be based on variations of the IBM's PowerPC chips -- the same chips used by Apple.

      The irony is, it's Microsoft that's starting to switch platforms, starting with the XBox. Not Apple."

      Wired May 24

      --
      bada bing
    49. Re:Linux? by Peaceful_Patriot · · Score: 1

      "he needs to slap his daughter and tell her to quit doing whatever the hell she's doin on her computer"

      Wouldn't it be easier to just give her a restricted user account? Why would anyone give a teenager admin privliges?

      "1000 free smilies? Sure and a cute screensaver too..and this cool game...gee where does all this spyware keep coming from?"

      --
      There is nothing so powerful as an idea whose time has come.
    50. Re:Linux? by daviddennis · · Score: 1

      The biggest advantage of MacOS X is not that it's idiot proof. As others have said in this thread, Linux is very similar all around.

      However, MacOS X runs mainstream commercial software with some very nice twists. You can get Microsoft Office, and it will read Office files from Windows without the backbreaking problems I've seen with OpenOffice. The applications are slick and better designed. And of course it has very cool media tools for when you're using digital cameras and the like.

      I'm not going to say it's foolproof, but at least it's fool-friendly, with a lot of delicious eye candy to help the medicine go down.

      Heck, I prefer it to Linux and I'm a Unix geek who writes HTML by hand and does lots of server-side Unix programming.

      D

    51. Re:Linux? by simscitizen · · Score: 1

      So how again is this an advantage of Linux? Any XP, OS X, any modern OS can be set up in the exact same way. It's the users that don't understand wtf they are doing that is the problem. A lot of people barely get by knowing how to click new, open, save, and print in Microsoft Word--they don't even grok the concept of needing multiple logins to install stuff.

    52. Re:Linux? by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you can farm your administration out to your tech-savvy offspring, but Linux doesn't Just Work.

      Maybe someday, but not now.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    53. Re:Linux? by cr4p · · Score: 1

      What properly runs in Windows without requiring admin privileges?

    54. Re:Linux? by Ritz_Just_Ritz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I had a similar experience. I switched my folks (in their late 50's with little computer experience) from Windows 2000 to CentOS 4.0 (basically Redhat EL4). And I haven't heard a peep out of them since. They use firefox for the web, thunderbird for email, and openoffice when someone sends them a MS Office file. The computer boots up faster, doesn't creak under the bloat load (It's a P3 1ghz machine with 384MB RAM and an Nvidia GeForce 5200 card) and just plain works. The fact that they don't have to give a moment's thought to virus infection or spyware is "pennies from heaven"...a bonus. Everyone's happy. Cheers,

    55. Re:Linux? by geofforius · · Score: 2, Funny

      Unfortunately, Linux is completely idiot-proof, meaning that there is no way an idiot can use it.

    56. Re:Linux? by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Mac OS X = more elegant, easier, but much more expensive.

      Windows = virus and malware magnet, IP-encumbered, $$.

      Linux = harder to set up, free, Free.

      Doesn't establish Linux as the clear winner, but it has it's place at the table.

      --
      You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
    57. Re:Linux? by ozmanjusri · · Score: 1

      It's just not that simple.

      Yes it is. I've set up a lot of computers for people with varying degrees of computer knowledge over the past few months. Most have been XP SP2 installs, but for non computer-literate people who say they just want email, photos etc, I've been saving them the money and installing Debian via Knoppix.

      The default Knoppix install needs minimal changes to localise and lock down - certainly no more than Windows. So far, none of the "newbies" has had any problems with their Linux systems. For them, it just works.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    58. Re:Linux? by arminw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ... if she doesn't have a firewall and a virus scanner, then she needs to be slapped and told to stop doing whatever she's doing...

      The Intel guy is right. I don't have a firewall other than what comes with my Mac and I have NEVER spent a nickel on anti-malware programs of any kind. A good consumer computer should be secure out of the box, like a Mac generally is. Every car comes with good locks and other anti-theft systems. Should a consumer have those install those themselves? Why can't the richest man on Earth deliver a safe, secure computing experience to people like Mr. Otellini's daughter?

      If she had a Mac and did not know the admin password, she could not screw up the entire computer even if her life depended on in short, of hitting it with a hammer or throwing it out of a third floor window, ie. physically assaulting it. She might manage to mess up some of her files, but the system itself would keep running just fine.

      If MS and all the other computer makers were held liable in court for their crapware, the way car makers and makers of most other CONSUMER goods are, the security problem would have been solved long ago. Of course so far, a BSOD has not resulted in the death or injury of anyone AFIK, except possibly to a few computers bashed in by irate users that just lost large amounts of hard work to a crash.

      --
      All theory is gray
    59. Re:Linux? by jericho4.0 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      "Honestly... if the system is so hard to use that you need to protect it from yourself through the use of multiple logins... why would it be a better choice than anything else?"

      This, IMO, is why we are in the sequirty mess we're in today. A computer is not a toaster. It is, in fact, possibly the most complicated device known to man. You're going to have to enter a fucking password to be secure, OK? Get over it.

      --
      "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
    60. Re:Linux? by podperson · · Score: 1

      He wants a computer that's (a) spyware free and (b) actually useful for doing stuff...

    61. Re:Linux? by vettemph · · Score: 1

      >if she doesn't have a firewall and a virus scanner, then she needs to be slapped

      If she is young enough to be slapped then she is young enough to have the firewall and virus scanner or linux installed, administered and locked down FOR HER.
      My neice and nephew screwed my moms PC only two times before I blamed myself for giving mom a windows box. I quickly installed Linux and neither of us has had a problem with her PC since in almost two years.
      This guy is an Intel big shot, what is he doing leaving crap computers lying around in the first place?

      --
      The government which is strong enough to protect you from everything is strong enough to take everything from you.
    62. Re:Linux? by jericho4.0 · · Score: 0
      You're either doing this as a joke, cause you saw the last post, or you're doing it again.

      It's "volia", no "Wa-la".

      --
      "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
    63. Re:Linux? by nukem996 · · Score: 1

      The big thing that made my grandparnets happy was not only did it all just work but it was free.

    64. Re:Linux? by Rinikusu · · Score: 5, Funny

      I did the same thing, except I took my parent's computer home with me to "fix" it and have yet to return it. They don't call me with computer problems anymore.

      --
      If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
    65. Re:Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Well, I don't like just advertising for the heck of it.... but have you tried SUSE?

      SuSE usually just works (exception, when I had a BNC network I still had to set the parameters for the NIC by hand to avoid it using the RJ45 port).

      By default it creates a normal user, to which it also auto-logins, so no need for an admin to do that for you.

      Everything, even apache (which it doesnt install by default, but it was an example) is configured graphically via YaST.

      It even installs a working (!) copy of wine, so you can run some of your windows programs (as good as wine can.. I mean, wine is still ... ugh)

      Now if they just got rid of Konqueror as the default browser in KDE everything would be right in the world; but it still does install Firefox by default.

    66. Re:Linux? by parcifal · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Money = Nothing to someone who is the CEO of Intel. Since Money among other major reasons is the chief differentiator for tech-minded people, buying a Mac given its ease of use is a no-brainer.

    67. Re:Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Talk about bizzaro world, MS is going to PPC and Apple is going to Intel...

    68. Re:Linux? by dr.badass · · Score: 1

      Why not Linux?

      If you RTFM -- in fact, the quoted blurb is TFA -- he doesn't recommend Apple, or anything else. When asked if someone should buy Apple, he said "Maybe."

      Has someone asked if they should use Linux he probably would have said "Maybe" also.

      --
      Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
    69. Re:Linux? by webslacker · · Score: 1

      "he needs to slap his daughter and tell her to quit doing whatever the hell she's doin on her computer"

      What, you mean like browsing the web?

    70. Re:Linux? by 1locs · · Score: 1

      Every car comes with good locks and other anti-theft systems.

      Try telling that to the car salesmen who want to try to sell you extra safety features.

    71. Re:Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or maybe Intel really has another reason to mention Apple, like scaring a distributor which maybe got too much self esteem?

      Yes, because childish and vengeful behavior is smart business!

    72. Re:Linux? by the+pickle · · Score: 1

      Key phrase there (emphasis added):

      "...so I put Fedora...on their computer"

      While they probably don't want to, they could have installed or upgraded Windows without your help.

      The same does not apply to Linux, unfortunately.

      Computers in general are too complicated these days.

      p

    73. Re:Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      your grandparents were actually getting errors on their computers on purpose. You should visit them more often!

    74. Re:Linux? by crath · · Score: 1

      Or, stop taking WinXP's default of granting every user Administrator privileges and set users to "Restricted" user mode (pretty much the equivenlent of a non-root user on *nix). Mr. Otellini's daughter wouldn't be able to install viruses and spyware if she was running as a restricted user.

      Before some /. überdolt marks this post as a troll, consider whether or not you have actual experience doing what I've advocated.

      Our family PC runs WinXP. My wife and 4 kids each have restricted user ids (I don't use the machine at all). We *never* have viruses or spyware issues. The problem isn't Windows, it the way people use it. If everybody logged into *nix as root there would be many more problems there too.

    75. Re:Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      os x = i would recommend it to my mother, who once admitted to not knowing how to turn the computer on.

      windows = sucks. period. as an operating system, i had my reservations against it. as a programmer, it haunts my dreams.

      linux = not always that hard to set up, you just have to choose the right distro. oh and yes, free...

      and in response to the earlier post, there is nothing stopping a single user from creating an administrator account at installation, and choosing to use another account for their day to day computer activities - most distributions recommend it during the install process. that way you don't have to worry about accidentally typing 'rm -rf /', or anything moronic like that.

    76. Re:Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it really so good that no problems ever happen? Not even hardware problems? How long has it been? 1 week? 3 months? Years? If it's been years, that's just amazing.

    77. Re:Linux? by mpathetiq · · Score: 2, Informative

      You're either doing this as a joke, cause you saw the last post, or you're doing it again.

      It's "voila", not "volia".

    78. Re:Linux? by dr.badass · · Score: 1

      Maybe Apple is going to use intel hardware...

      It's already been speculated upon, although not confirmed by either party.


      In fact, it's been outright denied by both parties, and is every time this persistent rumor has come up over the past 15 or 20 years.

      --
      Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
    79. Re:Linux? by pembo13 · · Score: 1

      How is Fedora, in this case, so much harder to install than Windows ? It's fair to say that they can just keep clickign 'Yes' and all will be ok.

      --
      "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
    80. Re:Linux? by Afrosheen · · Score: 1

      What struck me as weird is that he was willing to do this *himself*. With the collective nerd force at Intel, you think they'd have one dude that could be suckered into doing it for him under the pretense that 'it's good to do favors for the Big Boss'.

    81. Re:Linux? by xerid · · Score: 1

      OSS needs a central organization to bring in hardware manufactures to support their products in the OSS model. The hand that rocks the hardware industry is the hand that rules the world.

    82. Re:Linux? by prichardson · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why the hell should it have to be removed at all. Any computer worth its cookies should have the kind of security model that doesn't allow websites to install shit.

      The biggest trick Microsoft ever pulled was convincing people that having a secure computer was hard, and that the occasional virus was normal. We need to have a culture shift; insecurity and major design flaws shouldn't be tolerated by users. I don't understand why people put up with fighting with their software, working around bugs to do basic tasks.

      You all know the specifics, there's no need for me to even go into them.

      --
      Help I'm a rock.
    83. Re:Linux? by mindstrm · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah.. except
      you DO have access to your user files, and tons of application settings, and just about every computer resource needed to mess things up for you.

      Sure, you can't erase the system files, perhaps, or some key software, but you can still mess up your own desktop environment completely.

      Most mac users do have the admin password to their mac, and yet they still manage to not screw it up.

      My theory on this is twofold:
      1) The way admin passwords are asked for and handled is more sane. It will prompt you for it when needed, as opposed to asking you to sign out and log in and do things again (windows). I am not convinced this is that important.. but it plays a role.

      2) More importnatly, the UI is more consistant, and users are generally fairly confident about how their computer should look, feel, and behave. Anything that changes that is instantly noticed.. In windows, people tend to accept change as a part of life; people EXPECT their computer to degrade in performance over time, eventually requiring a re-install or upgrade. My OS operates at precisely (as far as I can tell) the same speed as wehn I installed it, a couple years ago, and that's after two full OS version upgrades (not re-installs), and moving the drive between 3 different macs. By same speed, I mean adjusted for faster processors; The OS on the G4 1.4Ghz runs faster than the G3 800, by the expected amount.

    84. Re:Linux? by ArcticFlood · · Score: 1

      Not always true. Some applications on Windows expect to always have admin privileges, so they try to save temp files in a directory that only an admin can access.

      --
      This is here so you don't ignore the last two lines of my posts.
    85. Re:Linux? by cicho · · Score: 1

      I don't know. Windows security is one thing. But would you slap Ray Tomlinson for every piece of spam you receive?

      --
      "Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big ones are kept secret by public incredulity." - Marshall McLuhan
    86. Re:Linux? by stuuf · · Score: 1

      Windows or OSX ... don't present settings that will prevent the PC from booting where you might accidently click on them (or type them...)

      I'm going to attempt to reply to your idiotic claims with some amount of rational thought. If anything, Windows makes actions that "prevent the PC from booting" far too easy. It's extremely difficult to "accidentally" log in as root and run "mke2fs /dev/hda1". A lot harder than a stupid windows user with admin privileges right-clicking the C drive and selecting "format" because that's what they thought some poorly-written support document for an older OS was telling them to do.

      The linux camps need to stop stabilizing the kernel and spend enough time with user interaction

      What you don't seem to understand about the "Linux camp" (which is indeed much more amorphous and decentralized than you imply) is that certain people are working on the kernel, others are designing and implementing standards for desktop environments, and others are packaging the kernels and desktop environments into distributions that users can use easily.

      until my grandmother can use the calculator without fear of a total meltdown.

      You've never used a desktop calculator program on linux, have you? I can open the Gnome Applications menu and select the Calculator icon from the Accessories submenu, just like windows. OK, it gets a little confusing when you switch to Scientific mode, but seriously, does your grandmother even have a clue what a natural log is? or a factorial? Modern linux desktop environments are very powerful and easy to use; the only thing missing is a distro that handles all of the setup and hardware integration out of the box, and a lot of that is dependant on cooperation from vendors. So I don't really see anything that the linux camp is doing wrong.

      Why do I even bother fighting stupidity?

      --

      Everyone is born right-handed; only the greatest overcome it

    87. Re:Linux? by child_of_mercy · · Score: 1

      i'd love to

      --
      'There is a Light that never goes out.'
    88. Re:Linux? by Mahou · · Score: 1

      i didn't spend a nickel on anti-malware programs either, avg anti-virus and ad-aware are both free and good enough for me. you could also make her windows account so limited she couldn't mess it up unless she physically assaulted too. and your analogy to a car is retarded. all those security features like locks, airbags, and seatbelts do cost extra they're just standard, things like clubs to put on your steering wheel are extra, anti theft systems are extra most of the time.

      --
      if i'm not immortal, what's the point of living?
      ...te?
    89. Re:Linux? by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      Install Windows on a blank machine? How is this easier than installing Linux?

    90. Re:Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if someone breaks into your home, is that a design flaw of your house or just someone being an ass?

    91. Re:Linux? by aaamr · · Score: 1

      Because Mac OS X is for the mainstream consumer, not the techie uber-geek who wants to tinker all day long to get just the right video drivers installed to play whatever-game-is-most-cool right now.

      Don't get me wrong... I run Linux and my preferred distro is Crux (www.crux.nu) becuase I have ultimate control. I probably wouldn't recommend it for my wife/kids/mother-in-law/non-techie-friends/etc though.

      Most people want things to "just plain work" ... and that's where Apple gets it right.

    92. Re:Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd like to slap Ann Coulter for every piece of spam I receive.

      Just for the hell of it, you know.

      I work for an anti-spam company. We receive about 10 million spam a day.

    93. Re:Linux? by Jozer99 · · Score: 1

      What is his teenager doing on this computer? I have a Windows XP SP2 box with a basic firewall, running Firefox, and I get MAYBE 2 or 3 spyware programs per month. Is she running an unpatched ME machine with no firewall directly connected to the internet? Honestly, someone that high up should either hire someone to make his PC reasonably secure, or have the butler run Ad-Aware for him.

    94. Re:Linux? by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      Rocket surgeon? What is a rocket surgeon?

      Trying to find a Linux distro? I guess they don't get Linux Format.

    95. Re:Linux? by madpanzer · · Score: 0

      My guess is that for those who have serious trouble keeping spyware off their own personal computer, Linux is out of the question.

      I've tried just about every 'desktop' Linux there is and the only that seems to hit the closest to the mark is Xandros, and that ain't free. When I used Xandros back at 2.0, it was much too difficult to install programs other than what Xandros provided; even with apt-get, it was far too easy to break the system.

      Linux is just not ready for the desktop yet, but its close.

    96. Re:Linux? by kff322 · · Score: 0

      Hmm I wonder why every just doesent use linux? Well, im not sure about you but I have never had linux work right out of the box, I have always had to configure it, mod it, etc. Most people go into FUD/blank face mode when you even bring up linux. A common responce. "Whats Linux?" more or less emacs or shell? Im sure most people havent even used a prompt based computer

      To make a long story short Linux is not user friendly....yet (Let the flamewar begin) I Believe that MAC OS X is the first TRUE user friendly and stable nix based OS.

      MAC is based on UNIX which LINUX is based on hmmm. think.think......

    97. Re:Linux? by ToasterofDOOM · · Score: 1

      Dude - Linux isn't for the mainstream. Sure, some are easy, but little can compare to Apple, and none are easy enough for computer ignorant n00bs. This isn't flamebait, I love Linux, but OS X is the best modern OS for regular people, and even many corporate user like graphic design. Also, before you RMS, most people couldn't care less about open source.

      --
      I am Spartacus
    98. Re:Linux? by mickyflynn · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      you voted AGAINST Bush and not FOR Kerry, didn't you? ;)

    99. Re:Linux? by Glendale2x · · Score: 1

      Why not Linux?

      Because he was asked "mainstream computer user".

      Disclaimer: not a troll.

      --
      this is my sig
    100. Re:Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just a small selection called "most software".

    101. Re:Linux? by dtfinch · · Score: 1

      She's probably downloading activex games and porn dialers.

    102. Re:Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      voilà

    103. Re:Linux? by AstroDrabb · · Score: 2, Insightful
      What properly runs in Windows without requiring admin privileges?
      Plenty:

      calc.exe
      notepad.exe
      mspaint.exe
      sol.exe

      Need I go on? Or were you looking for real examples? If so, sorry, I can't help ya ; )
      --
      If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
      it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
    104. Re:Linux? by rapidweather · · Score: 1
      I use and test various livecd linux distros, and on a reasonably powerful computer, with broadband, it can be easy to use. There is a lot of confusion, however, on the restoration of personal settings, and on some distros, that is not easy to do. Some of the best ones have not yet gotten that right.
      There are other problems, such as a sound card that won't work.
      I use Knoppix, and have remastered it to include some of the most often used popular programs. Take a look at the screenshots in my signature. I think the way I have it set up, the remaster would be easy to demonstrate to non-techies, and some of them might be able to use the OS on a daily basis.

      Still requires an "Admin" to guide them along, and answer all questions. I include a detailed guide for those willing to try and work with it by themselves.


      This remaster is not, however, designed for the newby, like the Mac OS is, I wanted to include the tools one would need to work on web pages, as long as they are able to write html, and willing to design graphics using GIMP, for use in the pages.
      I did, however, put a Firefox button on the toolbar, and a Shutdown button for use when the day is done.


      All we can do is try and come up with something that can be run on PC's, that is an alternative to Windows, and safer to run on the internet. If one has the money, however, the Mac can't be beat.

      A lot of folks have already invested in a PC, and may have gotten their Windows installation infected or otherwise hard or impossible to use. So they have to do something to save the day.

    105. Re:Linux? by rfunches · · Score: 1

      Why not Linux?

      Maybe because it's not as user-friendly, you'd have difficulty walking into CrapUSA or Worst Buy trying to find a PC with Linux preinstalled, and there's no 1-800-LNX-HELP phone support/warranty contract?

      Windows is successful because every consumer-brand computer sold in a retail outlet or major online site (*cough*Dell*cough*) has Windows preinstalled; you literally turn it on and 5-10 minutes later it's ready to go. The general public knows about Macs, and they too can be purchased in a retail outlet with the OS preinstalled and, I assume, pretty much ready to go out of the box (haven't owned a Mac in years).

      We are a lazy, instant-gratification-loving society. If it doesn't work out of the box it's a piece of crap and not worth our time.

    106. Re:Linux? by quietpenguin · · Score: 1

      'tis true! plus you can recompile your kernel anytime you want too, and get to spend all that time learning how to run make and configure utilities to get apps installed.

      plus it's very secure, with the root user account.

      all miscellaneous reasons why i have yet to do a linux install on someone's home computer other than my own, and why i bought a PowerBook. I do miss recompiling my kernel though.

    107. Re:Linux? by dingfelder · · Score: 2, Informative

      That depends.

      If the house has a major vulnerability like doors with NO LOCKS, or windows with no glass, it is clearly the former.

      If they bust a window or a door and get in, it is a case of the latter.

    108. Re:Linux? by MattHaffner · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Mac OS X = more elegant, easier, but much more expensive."

      Than what? My toaster? Linux? Windows?

      $500 nets you a machine that runs OS X, if you haven't been paying attention.

      You're going to have to point me at a machine that runs Linux that's "free, Free" (as in beer).

    109. Re:Linux? by qw(name) · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but Linux is not POSIX compliant like *BSD releases.

    110. Re:Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Linux = harder to set up, free, Free.

      Check out XandrOS. It is dead easy to install, maintain and configure. I'm serious, it's probably easier to install than Windows because all applications (mail, browser, IM, video, audio, drivers) are installed by default (not much 'choice' in the selection but they're all adiquate). All non-free drivers (nVidia, ATI) work out of the box. It costs a little bit, but that also comes with Support, and CrossOver Office for running various applications (like MSOffice, if they dislike OpenOffice.) For updating, they double-click on 'XandrOS Networks', enter in a password and then it asks if they wish to patch their box. It's KDE hacked to look like but not rip off Windows. I put it on my Fathers computer (a 54-year old man who wants it to "just work") a while back, and he told me he prefers it over Windows now. Score one for FOSS.

      Next down is Ubuntu, which has a nifty "Click here to install updates!" button and a default install would do most every average user for installation.

      Of course, you could just be cruel and force them to do an installation of Slack/Gentoo/Debian, or hell, even FreeBSD, and make them hate computers for the rest of time so they don't ever have to be stressed by the futile machines ever again!

    111. Re:Linux? by ArbitraryConstant · · Score: 1

      I've used Linux as my primary desktop OS for several years. I've gone through most of the mainstream distros (Suse, Mandrake, Slackware, Gentoo, Fedora, Debian, Ubuntu) and one thing has been universal: it wasn't that hard for me to set up, but I had to use the command line and I had to know things I couldn't reasonably expect an inexperienced user to know.

      Getting a basic install on basic hardware is generally no problem, but whenever I try to do something fancy I have to do things manually. "Fancy" can mean dual monitors, playing videos with newer codecs, any number of things, generally different for the different distros.

      I'm fine with that because I know those things and it meets my needs, but there's no way I'd recomend it to an inexperienced user. Some of them want dual monitors and new codecs too.

      "Its secure and stable."

      2.6 is not so much "secure and stable" as it is "a minefield of regressions". Too bad 2.4 won't boot on my hardware...

      "You can use what ever hardware you want."

      If by "use whatever hardware you want", you mean "carefully research the hardware before you buy it" then you are correct.

      --
      I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
    112. Re:Linux? by sharpestmarble · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's been speculated upon. The general feeling by a few dozen Mac sites is that it won't happen. The general feeling is that, provided Apple does use Intel chips, it's going to be for something secondary, like on a graphics card or a TabletPC-type thing(although I think that last one isn't going to happen).

      --
      AC's modded -6. I don't see you, I don't mod you, anything you say is lost. Don't like it? Don't be a coward.
    113. Re:Linux? by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      I think you meant to say:

      In other marklar, Marklar is marklared to have marklared marklar to Marklar.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    114. Re:Linux? by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But you shouldn't have to install crap yourself just to keep your computer from getting owned. Especially when it's marketed to normal people, rather than IT workers!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    115. Re:Linux? by megalomang · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As funny as that would be, Dell is not scared of this. In fact, if the deal went through (and I don't think it will - at least in the PC business) it would be in all three's interests to have Dell involved.

      Apple SW + Intel CPU/chipset + Dell mobo and sales... the combined hype and marketing force alone would topple mountains, not to mention put a dent in Microsoft's ego and even profits.

      Oh yeah, and throw a little Google in there somewhere too... desktop search or something... lol

    116. Re:Linux? by gumbi+west · · Score: 1, Insightful
      Okay, I had about a year of experience with linux and one day I'm installing a program as root and accidentaly drag an essential root folder like 'bin' to another folder with a stray click while mousing across the screen. I didn't know what every folder was, so I didn't know how to fix it. I just had to reinstall. So I changed OSes.

      Contrast that with my Mac. When I need root access, it prompts me for my password. I'm never loged in as root, but if I try something in the GUI that requires root access, it asks me for a passworld. (it also hides /bin from me unless I reveal it).

    117. Re:Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with malware on Windows system does not neccesarily depend on its own security. But rather the dedication of the people creating the malware. Its easy to say Windows machines are insecure and plagued with virus and spyware problems. But thats because thats what most of these malware developers create their programs for.

      If the situation was reversed and the Mac OS was the most common and Windows was only used by 8% (or whatever it is up to now) then there would be thousands of viruses for the Mac OS. It is not immune to viruses as us Mac users are so quick to boast. (Yes, I am a mac user. Exclusively even) I think we need to give more credit to these malware developers and don't dump all the blame on Microsoft. Its their dedication to screwing up computers that makes it so common with Windows.

    118. Re:Linux? by Spoing · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Because unless you're a reasonably tech-minded person, Linux is too hard.

      That's bull. Case in point: I've set up a system for a friend who has 2 goals in using a computer; porn and surf music. He seems quite happy with his Linux system, and doesn't bug me with any questions.

      The reason why he asked me to install Linux? Every 6 months, he would have to call in a PC tech to clean his Windows system from virus and malware.

      After a few years of that, he happened to hear that I did not have these problems and asked me why. I said "I don't use Windows"... 'If not Windows, what?' 'Linux.' ...and so on. He quickly asked me to install it on his computer for him.

      At first, I did not install Linux for him, seeing if he would loose interest in the idea. I let 3 weeks pass. He didn't loose interst at all and was constantly annoyed with the spyware and virus problems he had to manage. Firefox did not resolve all these problems, and Norton slowed his computer down and showed him regular annoying messages. After the 3 weeks passed, I eventually installed Linux with a dual boot setup for him.

      He hasn't booted into Windows for over a year.

      This is an average guy. He's a bartender and not at all geeky. Knows nothing about computers besides they are great for porn and surf music. Try and get him to look at anything else and he's 100% uninterested.

      --
      A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
    119. Re:Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Really? Just about every time I tried to run some programs as a limited user, something always pops up that requires admin privileges to run, in the most obscure way. Some programs crash when they aren't being run as admin, or display some obscure error messages of their failure to access something when failing to load, yet run fine as admin.

    120. Re:Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Software I run without issues as non-admin:

      Office 97 (*)
      Visual Studio
      Winamp (*)
      Delphi
      FL Studio
      Nero (**)
      Thunderbird (*)
      Opera
      Python
      Putty

      (*) - Apps that need some alternate permissions set to function as expected, for example Winamp likes write access to its INI file under %ProgramFiles%\Winamp
      (**) - Requires Admin to install a burning service to bypass some permissions when writing discs.

      All of this software does the job it's supposed to, though occasionally with hiccups due to slightly bone-headed decisions (Thunderbird's inability to write stuff to a sensible place in the registry is one of these).

    121. Re:Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Forgot to add: just about the only apps that I honestly can't get to work without admin priveleges are games, particularly those that use brain-dead protection schemes (Doom 3 is a good example).

    122. Re:Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With Linux, you're automatically at a disadvantage - it's hard to NOT screw things up.

      Only if you're root.

    123. Re:Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She might manage to mess up some of her files, but the system itself would keep running just fine.

      Not quite true. If she made (or downloaded) a fork bomb and had it set to start on login (social engineering, anyone?), it would effectively disable her account until it was removed from another account.

      I've tried this on my home computer. You can't even shut the computer down. It takes a hard reboot. (Not sure if this has changed since 10.2 or so)

      To your average consumer, that would require a call to the local tech geek, who could have to do a CD startup. Certainly not life-threatening, but not harmless either.

    124. Re:Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes, we all know that you can buy a mac for $500. one without a monitor, keyboard, or mouse. 40 gig hd, 256 mb ram, a 32 mb graphics card... quality aside, you could get twice the performance from a dell that costs 300 dollars, and i am talking about a complete computer, not just a little white box that doesnt do jack *&(# until you shell out more bucks for the rest of the package.

      don't get me wrong, i have all the respect in the world for apple as a company, it scares me to think about where the industry would be without them. but there is no getting around it, they are overpriced for the performance they offer. and as far as quality goes, i am just not willing to pay a significant amount more for it, because at the end of the day, i could care less if my computer is going to die after a few years; it will be useless without countless upgrades at that point anyway, with the rate at which the industry has progressed.

    125. Re:Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $500 nets you a machine that runs OS X

      Yeah, but I'd rather use that money to buy a computer instead.

    126. Re:Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Linux is not UNIX.
      iPod is UNIX.

    127. Re:Linux? by CUGWMUI · · Score: 1
      $500 nets you a machine that runs OS X, if you haven't been paying attention.

      Sure. $500 does give you a nice little Mac Mini etc. But how about if you compare the performance of that machine with an equivalent PC you can buy for that price? Its not going to add up.

      I am a Mac user. And by jove, I could have been much richer were I using PCs. But I decided that I would pay the extra price for the Mac. It was worth it.

      Its just that simple fact. Taking the price/performance ratio into account, PCs are generally slightly cheaper. Macs demand a slight premium, and they deserve it.

    128. Re:Linux? by arminw · · Score: 1

      ...i didn't spend a nickel on anti-malware programs either, avg anti-virus and ad-aware are both free...

      No they are NOT free, unless your time is free. Maybe your time is free to you, but not to your boss or your boss's IT person. I just bought a new Honda and it has all the things you mention as standard equipment, all as part of the car. In fact I was quite embarrassed for a few moments while I figured out how to shut up that darn blaring security alarm it comes with. Sure, the cost of these items are included in the price of the car -- so what? I did not have to buy and install any of them extra. So MS could include decent security also for the exorbitant price they charge for their software. All that security comes out of the box when you buy the $129.00 OSX 10.4 from Apple. Why not have a secure OS for the $199.00 XP Professional from M$? For that same $199.00 M$ charges we can legally install the OSX on up to 5 computers and they don't have to phone home for activation each time I install a new HD or other major upgrade. By the way, we also have some Windows computers, which we DO have to watch like a hawk to keep them secure.

      --
      All theory is gray
    129. Re:Linux? by moranar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sorry, before you were working _as root_ Linux didn't ask you for a password? WTF?

      Either you were working as root _all the time_, something which anybody will recommend you NOT to do, or you used su, which asks you for a password. So I fail to see your point.

      --
      "I think it would be a good idea!"
      Gandhi, about Internet Security
    130. Re:Linux? by arminw · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...The general feeling by a few dozen Mac sites is that it won't happen...

      Why should it EVER happen? Why would Apple adopt the aging x86 architechture over the PowerPC? Even M$ uses IBM's PowerPC type processors in their new X-box. The new Sony Playstation also uses superior IBM technology processors. Why is it that a thousand or more Macs can be lashed together to build a supercomputer for way less money than doing the same sort of thing with the always touted supposedly cheaper standard Intel boxes? Apple of course COULD port OSX to other hardware.

      --
      All theory is gray
    131. Re:Linux? by master_p · · Score: 1, Informative

      I don't have a firewall other than what comes with my Mac

      Me too. And I am running Windows.

      I have NEVER spent a nickel on anti-malware programs of any kind.

      Me too. I use Search & Destroy and Lavasoft's Adware, both free.

      A good consumer computer should be secure out of the box, like a Mac generally is.

      Windows is secure out of the box. The problem is that bugs allow buffer overflow exploits, not that the security model of Windows is flawed. Try the latest XP edition, that comes with SP2 and NX-bit enabled: you can't hack into the box.

      Should a consumer have those install those themselves?

      Doesn't the user have to install newest versions of MacOS X by himself/herself?

      If she had a Mac and did not know the admin password, she could not screw up the entire computer

      That's also true for non-adminstrator accounts of Windows.

      If MS and all the other computer makers were held liable in court for their crapware, the way car makers and makers of most other CONSUMER goods are

      You are doing a foundamental mistake here: computer programming is not like car making, bridge building and other engineering activities. There has not been a programming theory that allows completely safe programs. The difference with hardware design is that it is essentially the same again and again for each specific type of item constructed, whereas in software a programmer builds a bridge one day, then a car, then an airport, then a rocket...software makers can't be held responsible for not obeying non-existent laws.

      Windows is crappy software from a software-engineering point of view: its APIs suck big time, Win32 does not have an object model, MFC sucks, VB sucks (.NET is just bearable), but one thing that Windows can't be blamed for is the design of the security model: it's much more complex than Unix, much more sophisticated, but no one has hacked it yet; bugs that allow exploits don't count, because they are not a software design problem, but a software industry problem (that allows using unsafe languages like C to program critical stuff; Unix also has had its fair share of failures: remember the Unix worm?).

    132. Re:Linux? by arminw · · Score: 1

      ....Mac OS X = more elegant, easier, but much more expensive...

      Really?! $129.00 is more expensive than $199.00 for XP Pro? By the time you upgrade a cheap Dell to the same functionality of a Mac mini it will cost the same or more. If your time is worth anything at all, the Windows boxes are much more expensive in the long run just for keeping them reasonably free of malware. We have both macs and M$ systems and the latter take much more work to keep them running. We have NEVER had to re-install OSX because of some malfunction, but that's not true with Windows. Out of the blue the Windows boxes just refused to boot one day, not matter what we tried. If it had not been for that neat KNOPPIX boot CD we'd have lost our most recent data as well.

      --
      All theory is gray
    133. Re:Linux? by arminw · · Score: 1

      ...I switched my folks...

      Yes, you are a typical /. person, but could your parents have set that all up without your or any other computer geek help? If your Dad gets a new digital camera, do you think he can get it to download the pictures and start up a decent picture sorting and display program like iPhoto without your help? If he wants to connect a digital video camera to the computer and edit last year's vacation footage, will he need your help first? If he plugs such a camera into a Mac, iMovie comes up and he can control the camera and upload the footage, edit it and burn a DVD all without installing or configuring a thing.

      --
      All theory is gray
    134. Re:Linux? by SD-VI · · Score: 1

      Damn, but I hate that assumption. Look, a Mac isn't secure out of the box. Nothing is completely secure. OS X is innately more secure than NT5-- no one in their right mind is going to argue about that-- but the fact is that EVERYTHING has holes, and EVERYTHING needs basic measures of protection. If you don't think you need those for your Mac, you're relying on the age-old principle of security through obscurity.

      Yes, that's right, I said security through obscurity. It's not completely fair, since you're actually relying on the COMBINATION of an innately more secure platform and less reason to attack that platform. However, you can NOT rely on an innately more secure platform when recommending something to others. Sure, it's a nice bonus, and it means that exploits will doubtless be fewer and farther between. Fact is, though, that if a platform becomes very popular, people with too much time on their hands will find even the smallest holes in the most secure software, and OS X was never actually designed for security, just based on something that was. It's kind of like saying that a box with a few small holes in it is water-proof and a box with more holes than box isn't. Yes, it's definitely more resistant to filling with water, but that doesn't mean that you should throw it in the damned ocean without covering it up. You know, assuming you didn't want water in the box or something. Okay, that was stupid, but you got the general point, right?

      On a side note, it's my opinion that OSS solves this problem pretty well. Higher popularity means lower water potential for the inside of the box (lord, what a stupid simile/analogy/whatever), but it also means that holes will be fixed more quickly, and that they have a much better chance of being found by those who know what they're doing and simply want to fix things. It's slow response time that's the killer, here, and you don't see slow response time with OSS maintained by so many people.

    135. Re:Linux? by arminw · · Score: 1

      ...Fact is, though, that if a platform becomes very popular...

      That is an old saw! Since there are millions of Macs, there ought to be at least ONE or maybe even two malware programs out there for Macs in the wilds of the Internet. However AFAIK there are still ZERO such programs out there. There have been some theoretical vulnerabilities, but these were quickly dealt with by Apple before even ONE Mac user fell victim to such possible malware. Mac users are WARNED if any program (such as some malware) wants to run for the first time and can refuse permission. Also ALL ordinary Mac programs run without the user having to be an administrator. There are MANY programs in Windows (especially games) that will NOT work properly in a restricted user account.

      --
      All theory is gray
    136. Re:Linux? by silverkniveshotmail. · · Score: 1

      Am I wrong to think he might be exaggerating?

    137. Re:Linux? by CountBrass · · Score: 1

      You're kidding, right? I can see it's to Dell's advantage to be associated with a quality computer brand but why would Apple want to be associated with a cheap box builder noted for the low quality of its consumer machines.

      --
      Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
    138. Re:Linux? by nicuramar · · Score: 1

      Well, but Linux is obviously not a common-person operating system. You need an 'expert' to set-up and maintain such a system, and for many people that isn't worth the time or effort. And let's face it, although there are exceptions, the look and feel of Linux just can't stand up to OS X; At all.

    139. Re:Linux? by evilviper · · Score: 1
      What properly runs in Windows without requiring admin privileges?

      Damn near everything... I know, because I've done it for large computer labs.

      I believe Electronics Workbench was the only one that didn't work perfectly out-of-the-box, and then it was simply a matter of e-mailing the makers, and finding out that one specific folder had to be writable...

      Office was a little bit quirky, but no actual problems with it...

      So, lets try this from the other angle. What programs are you using that are difficult/impossible to run as a non-privlidged user?
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    140. Re:Linux? by Slack3r78 · · Score: 1

      Honest question: Have you evaluated Ubuntu for this purpose? The reason I ask is because for the administration tasks a non-technical user might need to worry about (read: security updates and the like) it's a bit more user friendly, while maintaining a Debian base.

      Not meaning to start a (meta)distro flamewar here, just genuinely curious since Knoppix HD installs always seemed somewhat like a hack to me.

    141. Re:Linux? by Slack3r78 · · Score: 1

      This is so incredibly offbase I'm not even sure where to start, outside of saying that I use OS X, Windows, and Linux all on a practically daily basis.

      That said, a user can trash an OS X install in manner approximately equal to that of their ability to trash a Linux install. A normal user account has access to their home directory, and can essentially do what they want, up to and including trashing everything in it.

      Some distros (namely Ubuntu) have taken up OS X style password prompting with root disabled by default, which I definitely think is rather important, even if you downplay it. It's one of the things about OS X that was well thought out, and it's good to see Linux distros adopting a similar system. The reason so many Windows users run as admin is two fold - for one some things just plain don't work. But the other is even when things work, it's a pain when you do need admin privs. By making escalating priveleges no more difficult than a simple prompt, users are encouraged to run limited accounts.

      Not to say it's an infallible system. Remember the fake Office 'trial' for OS X that was going around on P2P a few months back? It'd prompt a user for their admin password, then go and helpfully start trashing files. Moral of the story? Any system is susceptible to user stupidity in the end, it's just a matter of how easy it is for them to trash it.

    142. Re:Linux? by Slack3r78 · · Score: 1

      I beg to differ. Ubuntu, which takes flak for still using Debian's text based installer, has a much more straight-forward install than any version of Windows. Nevermind Mandriva, Fedora Core, Xandros, SuSE or any number of other distributions with fully graphic installers that many would consider even more friednly.

      While your average user probably wouldn't install Linux on their own, I imagine it's more a matter of motivation than anything. I have no doubt that most people certainly could get Linux on their machine with most modern, user-oriented distributions if they were to put forth the effort, and they most certainly could do so easier than with Windows, whose installer is loaded with confusing and conflicting options.

      Seriously. Look at the installers side-by-side. I've certainly spent enough time looking at them working in IT, and it's very clear to me which of them needs work.

    143. Re:Linux? by xwildph · · Score: 0

      Apple needs to be given some credit here. With MacOSX, they have created something that linux has been striving for for years. An easy-to-use desktop system, suitable for your granny etc.

      Not only is the OS beautiful & functional, but the hardware is damn nice too. Linux is still somewhat difficult for end-users.

      • Driver installation is difficult, and picky. In the case of proprietary binary drivers, these mostly need to be matched to a particular kernel version, and sometimes even distribution before they will work correctly. A unified driver architecture that does not change between kernel & distributions is needed.
      • X11 can be difficult to configure, and troubleshoot. What the heck is a modeline anyway, plus various video drivers have different configuration options. freaky
      • Both Gnome & Kde, between them the most likely desktop environment that an end user could have, are each something of a memory hog.
      XW
    144. Re:Linux? by HaydnH · · Score: 1

      Mr. Otellini didn't actually say "you should buy Mac", he said "If you want to fix it tomorrow, maybe you should buy something else", that isn't specifying Mac at all - he's simply saying "not windows". Therefore Linux would be included in his suggestion.

      Haydn.

      --
      Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so. - Douglas Adams
    145. Re:Linux? by dustmite · · Score: 1

      Microsoft Windows currently basically requires you to be computer-savvy just to be able to use your PC with getting owned, so they should only market and sell it to computer experts. They should be very clear in their marketing material that the product is only intended for computer-savvy people.

    146. Re:Linux? by smileplzz · · Score: 1

      He really does not know the real capability of linux.
      But he loves his daughter so he wants to recommend something which is not windows.
      I will not listen to him and use linux.

    147. Re:Linux? by Cutterman · · Score: 1

      If you're going to correct folks spelling, then at least get it right...

      It's "voilà"

    148. Re:Linux? by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1
      You're going to have to point me at a machine that runs Linux that's "free, Free" (as in beer).

      The one you already own probably does the trick.

    149. Re:Linux? by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 1

      Mac OS X is less expensive than WinXP Pro only if you compare retail prices. If you compare the cost of an OEM license, which is how many if not most people obtain Windows, WinXP is cheaper.

      Mac OS X is more robust than WinXP, too. It's got a better security model, it's stable, and all that. But nothing is bulletproof. I support Windows and Mac OS X where I work, and believe me, we do have problems with Macs.

      I love Macs and by no means do I recommend avoiding them.

      --
      You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
    150. Re:Linux? by demigod · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Why can't the richest man on Earth deliver a safe, secure computing experience to people like Mr. Otellini's daughter?

      You don't get to be the richest man on Earth by giving people more for thier money.

      --
      "The last thing I want to do is deal with a bunch of people who want something."
      Major Major
    151. Re:Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What a prude.

      Seriously, exploits DO count. That's the whole point, you can break security on a windows box by running one of the MANY exploits. Your whole argument hinges on the understanding that exploits don't count and Windows is secure if you don't count them...are you CRAZY???

      Think about it. How do systems get hacked/cracked? It isn't by sitting there and guessing at passwords all day...granted that's one way to do it but it is inefficient...and while that would work on virtually any system it just isn't the easiest way to get in. Crackers use EXPLOITS to get in quickly...thus if you want to be secure IT MUST BE FREE FROM EXPLOITS so they DO count.

      I'm not saying Mac or Linux is free themselves...I'm just saying that your argument that Windows is secure b/c exploits don't count is just WRONG!

    152. Re:Linux? by Octorian · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it would almost make more sense to push for commodity-style PowerPC based motherboards, that fit an ATX chassis, and took common PC-type components.

      However, given that Apple is a hardware company right now, it probably would hurt them more than it could help them.

      Then again, with Microsoft's push to make themselves independent of x86 (maybe, if we're lucky), it could be very interesting if Windows/PPC ever emerged again (yeah, heard rumors that NT once ran on PPC, but I don't think I've ever heard of actual products, unlike NT/Alpha).

    153. Re:Linux? by Emetophobe · · Score: 1
      $500 nets you a machine that runs OS X, if you haven't been paying attention.
      Yes, a machine with 5 year old hardware specs. My 2 year old dell is a 2.66ghz p4 with 1gb of ram, 160gb hd, etc. etc.. Not some machine with hardware from the mid 90's.

      I mean the cheapest Mac Mini is $499 for a 1.25GHz with 256MB of ram. 256mb? Thats great if I only want to run the operating system. I would have to upgrade everything on the Mac Mini and it would end up costing $1000 American, and since I live in Canada, it would cost me over $1200. Hardly worth it for those specs.
    154. Re:Linux? by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Linux installs are still YMMV, SuSe included. On my older machine SuSe 9.0 was a no-brainer install, but on my latest and greatest, SuSe 9.1 choked.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    155. Re:Linux? by Politburo · · Score: 1

      Linux is too hard.

      That's bull.


      Excuse me.. did you read what you wrote?

      "Case in point: I've set up a system for a friend..."

      What happens when your buddy wants to do something else with his computer?

    156. Re:Linux? by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      As other people have said, the operative word is that YOU installed Linux for him. Once a Linux system is set up it's easier than Windows, but setting it up in the first place isn't always that easy.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    157. Re:Linux? by lukewarmfusion · · Score: 1

      You give mainstream users too much credit.

      Real Life Story

      User: "I lost all my programs and icons. They were open and I was doing things, and suddenly everything is gone."

      Me: "When did this happen?"

      User: "This morning. I can't find anything, and haven't been able to get any work done."

      Me: "Ok... what's on your desktop?"

      User: "What?"

      Me: "The place where all your icons usually are. What's on the screen?"

      User: "Nothing. The background even changed."

      Me: "Can you click on the other desktops?"

      User: "What?"

      Me: "At the bottom of your screen, there are four boxes in a square - click on the upper left box."

      User: (takes 30 seconds to find it, then clicks)

      Me: "Did you do that?"

      User: "Yes! They're back! Thank you!"

      -------

      I'm confident that Linux is progressing quickly and will be where it needs to be soon. Someone will put out a distro (maybe they already have!) designed to let my wife's grandparents, my 8-year-old cousin, etc. surf the web, check email, and play music/videos without giving them too many options. Windows and Mac OS are both guilty of this as well - but sometimes it's harder to find the screw-up areas. Most users don't accidentally wind up in their Security Policy settings on XP, for instance.

    158. Re:Linux? by Genom · · Score: 1

      What programs are you using that are difficult/impossible to run as a non-privlidged user?

      Games are the big culprit - anything that requires direct hardware access is going to want admin privs under Windows.

      I wouldn't be suprised if highend 3d packages (Max, Maya, etc...) are the same way.

    159. Re:Linux? by porcupine8 · · Score: 1
      Oh, so linux is easier because if I give my grandparents (or hell, even my parents) a linux box, I have to keep the root password to myself and whenever anything at all goes wrong (or anything else involving admin access needs to be done) I have to fly back home to fix it for them because I'm the only one in my family tech-savvy enough to be root. But at least they can't screw anything up, because they don't have root!

      Sign me up, baby.

      --
      Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
    160. Re:Linux? by Leeesher · · Score: 1

      Switching operating systems is only a temporary solution. - Shouldn't we be upset that he isn't advocating teaching our children how to not be complete morons?

    161. Re:Linux? by arminw · · Score: 1

      ...heard rumors that NT once ran on PPC...

      I still have an official MS CD disk of Microsoft Server with NT 4.0 on it for x86, Alpha and PPC systems. The PPC configuration it ran on however was not compatible with Apple hardware back then.

      --
      All theory is gray
    162. Re:Linux? by MattHaffner · · Score: 1

      The one you already own probably does the trick.

      You bet it does. But, it wasn't free.

    163. Re:Linux? by master_p · · Score: 1

      I totally agree: exploits DO count. But Windows has 0 exploits in its design, while it has quite a big number of exploits in its implementation. Please notice that the key word here is 'design'. The design of the Windows security model is not flawed, it is applications that are flawed. What I am trying to say is that it is not the security model of Windows at fault, but buggy applications.

      Neither Linux nor MacOS X are free of implementation bugs that can be used as exploits, by the way.

    164. Re:Linux? by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 1

      You can't admin remotely over SSL? Shame on you.

      --
      You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
    165. Re:Linux? by MattHaffner · · Score: 1

      Taking the price/performance ratio into account, PCs are generally slightly cheaper.

      I'm not running SPEC or Doom3 benchmarks 24/7 on my machine. I use it. I want to be able to use it whenever I want. I don't want to waste my time (and money) with virii, spy-ware, and all the associated "defensive" crap that's needed over and above the basics of modern safe Internet-ing (i.e. firewall, etc.). I might want to tweak my config files to do something, but I don't want to have to. I want a UI that is by-and-large consistent. I don't want to even think one iota about hardware drivers, unless I decide that's something I want to mess with.

      That's performance in my real life. The price/performance rating of LInux is pretty damn high since I'm a highly technical user. But even so, I'm finding my Mac(s) to be at least twice better performing. In the sense that I'm not wasting my time on things that I don't want to waste them on.

    166. Re:Linux? by MattHaffner · · Score: 1

      I would have to upgrade everything on the Mac Mini...

      Then it's not for you.

      That doesn't change the fact that there is a $500 machine that runs OS X well out there. That's not expensive.

    167. Re:Linux? by arminw · · Score: 1

      ...we do have problems with Macs...

      We also have problems with Macs, they are not perfect. The problems are normally not with the OS or hardware however, but with applications and peripherals.

      --
      All theory is gray
    168. Re:Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With DirectX or OpenGL, no games *require* direct hardware access for anything. The only thing that forces the use of admin rights is the copy protection they tack on.

      Maya runs perfectly as a normal user.

    169. Re:Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      haHa!

    170. Re:Linux? by Hercynium · · Score: 3, Interesting

      hehehehehe... I like you, you make me laugh!

      Are you a programmer... or do you just play one on TV? Seriously, I need to burn some karma on this one.

      I can't even quote sections of your post 'cause I'd be using the whole thing. First off, let me *defend* Windows (easy there, skript kiddeez, I'm typing this from my debian box)

      The Win32 API is big and ungainly in some places. It's not always consistient, and it's implementation most certainly has bugs... but it IS THE MOST comprehensive application development environment ever built. Please note, I said Applications, not systems.

      Win32 does not NEED an object model... repeat after me... system API's do not need object models. Would you prefer glibc to be OO? If you need classes, you've got MFC. If you need Components, you've got COM and it's ilk.

      I agree, I think MFC sucks... at least for my programming style. But there are LOTS of developers who will disagree. I also feel like programming in PHP is a PITA... but I *love* coding perl (I never said I was mentally stable) To each his own.

      Now, your most blatantly ignorant statement: the Windows Security Model... tell me, how log ago did you print out your degree... or are you speaking from years of inside experience? The Windows 'security model' look great on paper, doesn't it? ooooo, domain management, trust relationships, end-to-end encryption... tokens, global admins, profiles.... yep... it's pretty complex. Now imagine how many admins understand the interactions between all the parts and know how to make it work. Now imagine how many 'leet haxorz are out there slipping through the chinks... heck, I routinely slip past the security model of my company's windows network so I can actually work efficiently. To say that the model hasn't been broken is like saying President Clinton did not have sex with that woman, monica lewinski. Even fort knox can be breached if some idiot leaves a window open... and Windows is no fort knox. It's more like a tent with a professionally-printed sign that says 'this is fort knox'

      Anyhow, I've gotta go... I'm busy developing SECURE systems for a living.

      --
      I'm done with sigs. Sigs are lame.
    171. Re:Linux? by bynary · · Score: 1

      Regular home users, however are either not willing or not able (I'm really not sure which)

      First of all, alot of people have a hard time just using IE, Google, and Outlook Express let alone learning an entirely new OS.

      Personally, it's both. I know the Mac OS quite well. I know Windows quite well. I've done network support for both. So I'm no stranger to computers. The "neato" factor of Linux wears off pretty quickly once you realize the time investment it takes to set it up. This goes beyond familiarity with the OS. If the Linux community really wants to push their OS, they really ought to make it accessible to the common computer user. A vast majority of Linux How-To tutorials I've read were written with a fellow Linux nerd in mind. Don't assume that everyone is as comfortable with the technology as you are. Don't think that because they are ignorant of the technology that they are incapable of understanding it eventually. A little more compassion on the common computer user would go a long way in "converting" more people to Linux.

      I am a home user that has tried three times in the last five years to switch to Linux and have found it to be lacking in several areas. First, I have yet to find a good solution for playing Quicktime content. I spent three hours...three freakin' hours...downloading and installing RPMs all to enable Quicktime playback in Firefox. Did it work? Hardly. Second, Firefox and Thunderbird have to be instructed (through a very non-intuitive method) to recognize each other. WTF? Third, forcing a power cycle on a hung SuSE box invariably caused really, REALLY bad things to happen to the window manager. Fourth, my wife's business software, although capable of running in a Linux environment, requires Java Web start. Now, as of the time I quit using Linux Java under FC and SuSE was completely useless. That means time and money lost. These are four items from a very long list of grievances I have with Linux. It took me two freakin' weeks to setup Linux and get it to a point where my wife was at least willing to use it. You know what? After fixing the window manager for the nth time, I decided I'd had enough. I switched back to Windows XP and was up and running in two hours. btw, I've tried Red Hat 7, 8, and 9, FC, SuSE 8.1, 9.1, 10.1, Mandrake, Gentoo, Linspire, and Knoppix.

      Linux is a good OS. I just don't think it's ready for the home market yet. Windows and Mac just work. You have to flog Linux into submission.

      --
      http://www.bynarystudio.com
    172. Re:Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Why not Linux?
      Root kits, futzing with drivers, multiple hours to install, dependency pains when installing apps, library incompatibilities due to RPM packaging, cruft accumulating on your machine due to improperly set-up dependencies, etc. He's trying to get away from working on a computer and switching to one that just works. Macs are like appliances that you can open-up and tweak, if you want to. Fortunately, you don't have to. *nix is great, just not quite turnkey enough for the regular consumer.
    173. Re:Linux? by VStrider · · Score: 1
      Windows is secure out of the box???!!!

      Out of the box,...
      • you run everything as an admin. If you try not to, things break. So you leave it as is until the day you'll visit a mallicious webpage and/or run a mallicious app. Or what about your privacy? ANY user on a windows system can read/modify any of your private files because they are all admins!
      • the messenger service (not MSN messenger) is running and you are subject to spamming delivered directly on your desktop!
      • UPnP is on by default and wide open to the rest of the world. I haven't met any windows user who needs UPnP and yet it's on by default.
      • DCOM is again on by default and wide open to the rest of the world. Again, I haven't met any windows user who needs UPnP and yet it's on by default.
      • there are countless other needless services that although they are useless, if you try to shut them down, things will break! So you end up leaving them running with your machine potentially owned at any moment!
      • there are countless windows specific accounts and groups in your machine that pose a security risk, but if you try to remove any, your system will break!
      • Internet Explorer is integrated into Windows. So any flaw in IE results in a OS compromise. That smells like bad design doesn't it? Oh wait...they did it to counter the anti-trust lawsuit. That says something about MS priorities. Profits come first, user security - who cares?
      • ActiveX. Need I say more?

      The above are ALL design flaws! I don't even want to go to application specific stuff and buffer overflows. Many of them unpatched, waiting for someone to exploit your box.

      And you know what the most dangerous part is? The false sense of security that windows users get from antivirus, antispyware and that toy, the windows firewall. Or even the new "Security Center" on their control panel, that does nothing apart from falsly comforting windows users they are safe.

      --
      VStrider.
    174. Re:Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      So, lets try this from the other angle. What programs are you using that are difficult/impossible to run as a non-privlidged user?

      QuickBooks. When run as a limited user, instead of loading, it crashes on load.

    175. Re:Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really, consumer goods makers are held liable?

      Makers of poor-quality products are NOT held liable unless it involves public safety. Lousy electronics don't lead to class-action suits, they just don't survive on the market.

      'MS and all the other computer makers' will feel the heat when the public buys elsewhere, and not a moment sooner.

    176. Re:Linux? by ThJ · · Score: 0

      This is off topic, but have you ever thought about the fact that doors are rendered useless by windows? Breaking into a house with windows is the simplest thing on the planet. The only preventive effect a window has is the noise it makes when it breaks. Heck if I'm a neighbour and I hear glass breaking in the middle of the night, the last thing I'm gonna do is get involved. Doors are mere symbolism. You might as well put up a sign that says "Please don't walk into my house."

    177. Re:Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      The "exploiters" ignore Mac's b/c it's just no fun. If all the Mac owners shouted at once nobody would hear them. Why bother?

    178. Re:Linux? by Octorian · · Score: 1

      Which makes me wonder... Which PPC systems did it run on? There have been several made, from several companies (IBM RS/6000 and Apple Macintosh being the two most popular), and they all tend to use different chipsets/firmware/etc.

    179. Re:Linux? by MrCopilot · · Score: 1
      Give the little girl the best tool for the job, if that happens to be made by Apple, cest la vi.

      I personally think my linux boxes are more secure but would probably not suit his little girl. I know my daughter is constantly complaining, but then again, she is using my box, not one made for her. I answer her complaints with "Go play on your gamecube or learn the system." She goes to the cube only 40% of the time. She's pretty savvy for an eight yr. old.

      How many times a day must i tell slashdot that I'm NOT A FUCKING SCRIPT!!!!???!!!?!?
      As many time as you post in a FUCKING day.Punctuation is obviously not your strong suit.
      You are not alone buddy. I tend to use humor to express my dissatisfaction but to each his/her own explicative.

      --=
      --=10 Read Post
      --=20 Post to Slashdot
      --=30 Goto 10
      ...What do you know we're all scripts.
      --=15 Confirm I'm not a script.

      --
      OSGGFG - Open Source Gamers Guide to Free Games
    180. Re:Linux? by taboo959 · · Score: 1

      Just a couple of minor comments.
      There are quite a few pieces of software for OS X that do NOT run properly under non-admin log-in.

      Many more pretend to, but don't really. A good example of that is Carbon Copy Cloner, a program that you can run in non-admin mode, but.....since it asks for your admin password, but not your admin log-in name, you can't actually run it....making it functionally useless unless you log out and back in under admin.

      Granted, all the software I've seen like this is either shareware or open source and I'm not sure how much of it qualifies as "ordinary Mac programs", but that's another issue entirely......

      I do agree with you on the "security through obscurity" issue being an old and tired one, though.
      Something I never see pointed out is that there are so many people saying so publicly "OS X is more secure"....you would think that's a massive incentive for someone to write a functioning piece of malware or a virus, just for bragging rights if nothing else.....

    181. Re:Linux? by djwu · · Score: 1

      you can't slap bill gates b/c he's buried in billions of dollars in cash

    182. Re:Linux? by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      Read the README file from Doom3, then wonder why Id programmers are held in such high regard by the nerd crowd.

      But there are far more than just games. If you administer your own box at home, you'll find you need to run the admin account from time to time manually, to get the updates, etc.

      That's why most people don't bother and run as the admin all the time.

      Mac OS/X has got that one right. There isn't even an admin account by default.

    183. Re:Linux? by arminw · · Score: 1

      ...A good example of that is Carbon Copy Cloner....

      That is not a good example since that program is designed to copy the entire operating system onto another disk. It is not a program an ordinary non-admin user would run. There are other admin type programs also. What I'm taking about is ordinary programs for processing text, pictures, web pages, video, sound or even games etc. None of those kinds of programs need admin access once an admin has installed them for the user. I have a system backup program that requires admin access, but only if system stuff needs to be backed up or restored.

      --
      All theory is gray
    184. Re:Linux? by arminw · · Score: 1

      I believe Motorola and Power Computing in Texas made some boxes that could run either mac OS or the NT 4 server. Power Computing was bought out by Apple when they killed the clones. I don't remember what the models were however.

      --
      All theory is gray
    185. Re:Linux? by shokk · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, my 14 year old bought his own WinXP Dell from their refurbish center, and he's never had spyware issues. We have Microsoft Antispyware, some free AV software, chats on Trillian, has a Yahoo account, and uses Firefox exclusively. The thing runs like a champ and he runs all his games on there without a hitch. No need for slapping - the kid understood right away that some stuff that's out there can damage the thing HE paid for. Seriously, can't the head of Intel raise his kids better? Or is he one of those management types that works for a tech company but doesn't know a damn thing about tech? If that's the case, Apple should disassociate itself from this bozo's recommendation.

      --
      "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."
    186. Re:Linux? by master_p · · Score: 1

      you run everything as an admin.

      Nope: one of the last installation steps is the account creation dialog which allows the person that does the installation to create several accounts, just like Linux. You can choose to run without admin privileges.

      If you try not to, things break

      Nothing breaks if the account is not admin. My XP box is set up like this: my account is admin, and all other members of my family (father and sister) have their own non-admin accounts. They have never complained about anything.

      Or what about your privacy? ANY user on a windows system can read/modify any of your private files because they are all admins!

      Pure lies. No one can even see some of my files, because I have setup some of the folders non-visible for them, let alone modify them.

      the messenger service (not MSN messenger) is running and you are subject to spamming delivered directly on your desktop!

      But that is not a flaw of the design of Windows, it is just a buggy application.

      UPnP is on by default and wide open to the rest of the world. I haven't met any windows user who needs UPnP and yet it's on by default.

      Again, there is a bug in the software, it has nothing to do with the security model of UPnP.

      DCOM is again on by default and wide open to the rest of the world. Again, I haven't met any windows user who needs UPnP and yet it's on by default.

      There is a DCOM bug that allows a buffer overflow exploit. Again, not a design flaw!

      there are countless other needless services that although they are useless, if you try to shut them down, things will break!

      How can you claim they are useless, but if you remove'em, things break? they are either useless of useful. They can't be both at the same time.

      there are countless windows specific accounts and groups in your machine that pose a security risk, but if you try to remove any, your system will break!

      Pure fud. There is none. My XP box, right now, has 3 accounts: mine, my father's, and my sister's. There is no other account.

      Internet Explorer is integrated into Windows.

      It's not! I don't know why users believe these things! IE is buggy as hell, so I am using Firefox, and have installed it for all users. And I have no problem at all.

      ActiveX.

      Yes, active X is problematic, and it is the only piece of software with flaws in its design, but it's useless for any window app except IE. So no IE, no Active X, no problems with Active X.

      The above are ALL design flaws!

      Most probably you have no idea what is a design flaw and what is a bug. Let me give you a few hints:

      A 'design flaw' is when the design allows for security compromise. For example, Outlook Express allows the execution of arbitrary attached VB scripts on clicking the e-mail icon. That's a design flaw (I don't use it either-I use Thunderbird).

      A bug is when there is a carefully design architecture, but some stupid programmer forgot to check the buffer size, hence there is a buffer overflow (for example).

      See? a 'design' flaw is about bad design, and Windows is not badly designed. It is actually over-designed. All the problems Windows has is about bugs.

      And you know what the most dangerous part is? The false sense of security that windows users get from antivirus, antispyware and that toy, the windows firewall.

      It's funny that you say that: I am using all that, and never had any problem, although I visit the most dangerous sites you can imagine. But I don't use IE or OE...

      It's too sad when there is sheep mentality on the other side of the fence. Linux users are supposed to be more knowledgable than Windows users, more educated, more democratic, more free.

    187. Re:Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mac OS X = more elegant, easier, but much more expensive.

      Mac OS X is elegant if by elegant you mean it looks purty. If you want to impress this user, run your codes through lint.

      ($#%^&% stupid Mac OS X users...)

    188. Re:Linux? by gumbi+west · · Score: 1
      I logged in as root so I could use the GUI as root while doing an install and setup. I didn't know how to do that (still don't) nor did I know about su (it's not the sort of thing you have to know when you are learning old school *NIX b/c you don't have su access, it's just when you are thrown out on your own that you get to learn about stuff like that).

      Anyway, the Mac wraps it all up tightly so that I don't have to change my access level to do something, I do something and then it asks me for my password to change my access level it's like it says, "fine, but this is a big deal so you are going to need to verify that you really want to do this first." that is a heck of a lot nicer than the old school *NIX methods.

    189. Re:Linux? by moranar · · Score: 1

      Mandrake Linux does just that for the things it has tools developed. And if you login as root (graphical mode) it _seriously_ tries to dissuade you. Wallpaper in bright red, popup warnings, reduced access to common applications...

      The idea is to occasionally use su from console or directly to open graphical apps and fill in the root password if needed. I find it very nice.

      For example, if I downloaded an rpm package, clicking (or doubleclicking) on it would offer me the possibility of installing it. If I chose it, it'd ask for the root password and only then proceed to install the thing.

      --
      "I think it would be a good idea!"
      Gandhi, about Internet Security
    190. Re:Linux? by Spoing · · Score: 1

      I don't have to give him credit...he tells me if there are any problems. There aren't.

      --
      A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
    191. Re:Linux? by Spoing · · Score: 1
      He's an average joe. Actually, his name IS Joe. He doesn't want to do anything else. I asked. He's happy. He's not shy about telling me he thinks something is crap. He's happy.

      Could he have done more beyond porn and surf music? Sure. When I point it out, he's entirely disinterested. Porn: Good. Surf: Good. Using a word processor, database, graphics editor, ...: Zzzzzzz.

      Linux can do these things well enough that Joe could understand how to do it. These apps and many more are installed and available for him to use if he wishes. All from a default install. He's not interested, though, so he doesn't bother with them. Porn. Surf. Done.

      --
      A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
    192. Re:Linux? by Spoing · · Score: 1
      As other people have said, the operative word is that YOU installed Linux for him. Once a Linux system is set up it's easier than Windows, but setting it up in the first place isn't always that easy.

      He had Windows on his computer. He had to have a tech come in and work on it once every 6 months. He now has Linux on it. He had one guy (me) work on it once; a default install + video codecs.

      He's totally incapable (and not interested) in setting up or repairing either Linux or Windows. He's a bartender, not a geek. Linux works for him where Windows was a hassle.

      --
      A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
    193. Re:Linux? by SD-VI · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is an old saw. It's also a sad fact that most of the people that say it are idiots. However, that shouldn't reflect on the statement itself, at least not to the extent that the statement is ignored or rebutted without sufficient evidence.

      >>Since there are millions of Macs, there ought to be at least ONE or maybe even two malware programs out there for Macs in the wilds of the Internet. However AFAIK there are still ZERO such programs out there.>>
      What kind of person actually bothers to write malware? The kind of person that would much rather write malware for a system that is both much easier to exploit and in much wider use. That doesn't mean you should run any machine without basic protection.

      Also, there are definitely more than zero such programs out there (feel free to consult archives or Dr. Google). They are not nearly as widespread as ones for Windows, for the reasons pointed out above, but they exist.

      >>Also ALL ordinary Mac programs run without the user having to be an administrator. There are MANY programs in Windows (especially games) that will NOT work properly in a restricted user account.>>
      That is an old saw!

      It's also completely correct. This is a big chunk of what I was referring to when I said that OS X was innately more secure than NT, and it is (imho) a MAJOR flaw in NT, and why I'd never consider it as even approaching secure (it practically requires the regular users to be administrators at all times).

      An interesting fact: I never once objected to the concept that OS X was superior from a security standpoint, and yet you felt obligated to raise that reason. Are you wondering about any possible bias you may possess at this point?

    194. Re:Linux? by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      Look, a Mac isn't secure out of the box.

      Yes, it is. No services are running, so you have nothing to hack into in the first place.

    195. Re:Linux? by Scudsucker · · Score: 1
      Nope: one of the last installation steps is the account creation dialog which allows the person that does the installation to create several accounts, just like Linux. You can choose to run without admin privileges.

      Which is a pain in the ass to do. Many popular applications including games will not run properly unless you run them as administrator. Yes, there is "run as", but that is a piss poor knock off of sudo, especially in a multi-user environment. Either you have one admin account and everyone knows the password, a security risk, or each admin user has two seperate accounts, also a security risk. So the insentive to run as admin all the time is very high, and that's for people who are familiar with security, much less Joe Smoe.

      Nothing breaks if the account is not admin.

      No, not broken. Just doesn't run.
      • Or what about your privacy? ANY user on a windows system can read/modify any of your private files because they are all admins!
      Pure lies. No one can even see some of my files, because I have setup some of the folders non-visible for them, let alone modify them.

      Pure bullshit. If they are admins, they can change those permissions just as easily. Duh. You are only secure if you use encryption.

      But that is not a flaw of the design of Windows, it is just a buggy application.

      It's not just the messenger application, it's the messenger service, which is also on by default. Again, duh.

      How can you claim they are useless, but if you remove'em, things break? they are either useless of useful. They can't be both at the same time.

      Because unnessesary services are unnecessarily tied into other parts of the sytem? Example: even if you don't use IE, it's still built into the os. So for the third time: duh.
      • Internet Explorer is integrated into Windows.
      It's not! I don't know why users believe these things! IE is buggy as hell, so I am using Firefox, and have installed it for all users. And I have no problem at all.

      Oh, so not only are you a Windows fanboy, you are a dumbass as well. What the hell do you think the major issue of the anti-trust trial was about?

      See? a 'design' flaw is about bad design, and Windows is not badly designed. It is actually over-designed. All the problems Windows has is about bugs.

      Oh, so ActiveX was not a bad design, integrating IE into Windows (yes, it happened, deal with it) was not a bad idea, have a security model that strongly encourages the user to run as admin all the time is not a bad design decision, and having services and ports open all over the place is not a bad design decision.

      Hey, it looks like this nick hasn't been taken yet. You should hop on it now while it's open.
    196. Re:Linux? by gumbi+west · · Score: 1

      Impressive. How about the control panels? How do you turn on sshd? How do you check for security patches on the OS?

    197. Re:Linux? by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      Mac OS X is less expensive than WinXP Pro only if you compare retail prices. If you compare the cost of an OEM license, which is how many if not most people obtain Windows, WinXP is cheaper.

      That's a red herring, since all Macs also come with OS X. So if you want to compare apples to Apples, you need to look at the retail boxes.

    198. Re:Linux? by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 1

      That's a fair point...

      But anyway, my real point was that Mac OS X is a lot more expensive than LINUX, not WinXP. Especially considering that you CAN install Linux on whatever existing hardware you have, whereas to get OS X you have to go out and buy a Mac if you don't already have one.

      --
      You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
    199. Re:Linux? by taboo959 · · Score: 1

      Hehe. Yep, s'why I said "I'm not sure how much of it qualifies as "ordinary Mac programs"".

      When using those definitions, then, no, nothing I've run into require admin access....except a cpl of games that insisted they be installed in /Applications, and then only for the installation.

      There have been others I've run in the last few months that were that way as well, just CCC was the only one that came to mind....

      On a side-note, CCC (and the others) irked me not because they require admin access (I quite agree that they should), but because they assume you are logged in as admin. ie it asks for an admin password, with no available field for admin user name. A better behaviour would be to simply not run at all, with a message stating "you must have admin access" or some such.

    200. Re:Linux? by moranar · · Score: 1

      The control panel is mcc (mandrake control center). A click on a nice icon in the menu or in the panel, or just typing

      mcc
      in a console will bring up the root password prompt (graphical).

      sshd: you can turn it on from the control center, from a console calling

      /usr/sbin/drakxservices

      (asks for password) or using su and

      /sbin/service sshd start

      Security patches: through the updates system (has three levels of updates: security, corrective and normal). This is accessed from mcc again, and there's obviously a command from console, which I don't remember, to bring up the graphical interface. I use

      urpmi.update -a && urpmi --auto-auto-select

      which require root status, and update everything. So I su.

      --
      "I think it would be a good idea!"
      Gandhi, about Internet Security
    201. Re:Linux? by zombie-m · · Score: 1

      But Windows has 0 exploits in its design, while it has quite a big number of exploits in its implementation.

      Even if that is true, I don't see how the distinction is relevant. Just because a flaw^Wexploit is in the implementation rather than the design doesn't make it any less dangerous.

    202. Re:Linux? by master_p · · Score: 1

      Which is a pain in the ass to do.

      What is pain the ass? to check out the 'run as administrator' check box? because that's all it takes to select non-administrator account.

      Many popular applications including games will not run properly unless you run them as administrator

      How is that a fault of the Windows O/S? there is an equal amount of applications (I should say 90%, but I won't) that runs fine with non-admin privileges.I t is a fault of the application vendors that fail to provide support for non-admin accounts. Your argument would be valid if application vendors would be forced to run as admin.

      Yes, there is "run as", but that is a piss poor knock off of sudo, especially in a multi-user environment. Either you have one admin account and everyone knows the password, a security risk, or each admin user has two seperate accounts, also a security risk.

      You mix and match what suits your ill argument. In multiuser environments, like enterprise LANs, if an application requires administrator access, you call the administrator to install the application. For example, in the company I work, If I need to install a driver, I do it with the help of an administrator. It's no different than the 'su' command of Unix. And in Windows, you don't need to mount and unmount devices (an archaic concept), so 'sudo' is never needed.

      Secondly, Windows does not need 'sudo' because the administrator can give non-admin users the exact same capabilities, even down to issuing 'tickets' for a limited amount of time.

      No, not broken. Just doesn't run.

      I used your own words for 'not running'.

      Or what about your privacy? ANY user on a windows system can read/modify any of your private files because they are all admins!

      Again, pure fud. No one can read or modify my files, if I wish to do so. As I have told you, I have made some folders invisible on my home PC, so as that the other members of the family can't even see them.

      If they are admins, they can change those permissions just as easily. Duh. You are only secure if you use encryption.

      All your arguments get down to 'all being admins'. Well, that's not the case. I suggest you install Windows and learn how to use them.

      It's not just the messenger application, it's the messenger service, which is also on by default. Again, duh.

      If I have to repeat myself, it's usually a sign of stubborness from the other side (that's you) that fails to comprehend a simple thing: there is buggy code, but not buggy design.

      Because unnessesary services are unnecessarily tied into other parts of the sytem? Example: even if you don't use IE, it's still built into the os.

      First of all, how can you claim them to be unnessary? do you know the exact Windows architecture? I can tell you, as a Windows programmer, they are needed.

      Secondly, IE is not a service, it is an application. Bypassing the fact that you present a buggy application as a core Windows service (which is not), IE is not intergrated into Windows. How many times do you have to be told?

      What the hell do you think the major issue of the anti-trust trial was about?

      Oh boy...it's depressing when people are so stupid. Anyway, here is what went on: Microsoft claimed that IE was intergrated with Windows in order to get the market share. From a marketing point of view, IE is part of the Windows operating system distribution. From a technical point of view, IE is not part of the O/S. Windows does not require IE to run, nor does IE have a core component that all applications require. IE is not part of the Windows architecture!!! Evidence for this was the Windows Lite edition with IE removed!

      Oh, so ActiveX was not a bad design,

      IE, OE and Active X were indeed buggy as hell, and Active X was badly designed from a security standpoint.That's hardly a reason to bash Windows, the operating system like you do!

    203. Re:Linux? by mindstrm · · Score: 1

      I think you missed my point. NEver did I say anything was infallable, infact I think I went out of my way to make sure I didn't say that.

      An OSX user has all the access they need to trash their system, absolutely, I don't debate that.

      What's interesting is that they very rarely end up actually trashing it; something that is quite common among windows users. The average OSX user I've seen has a cleaner, better functioning system than the average windows user. I'm not saying this is due to some technical reason, only that there is SOME combination of factors that leads to them keeping their systems cleaner.

      Regarding the password prompting: Mandrake also had this years and years ago... but we aren't talking about linux here. There isn't a large enough desktop userbase using the same desktop setup to say "Yes it's better".

    204. Re:Linux? by VStrider · · Score: 1

      Nope: one of the last installation steps is the account creation dialog which allows the person that does the installation to create several accounts, just like Linux. You can choose to run without admin privileges.Nothing breaks if the account is not admin. My XP box is set up like this: my account is admin, and all other members of my family (father and sister) have their own non-admin accounts. They have never complained about anything.

      False. As an example, 99% of windows apps will save their settings in the folder they were installed, usually C:/Program files/somefolder. If you run any said app unprivilidged, the app will break, as in will not work. You can only make it work if you give your limited users write permissions into said folder(they already have read permissions). Now, you may gone through this ordeal of identifying problematic apps and adjusting rights accordingly, but the average user certainly cannot do so. Instead they simply choose to let everyone run as an admin.
      Now if you claim this is not Microsoft's design fault but it's the said app designers fault, don't forget that before windows 2000, there was no userspace for app settings and this was Microsoft's common practice for years(to have apps saving settings in Program Files), which is carried out till now.

      Pure lies. No one can even see some of my files, because I have setup some of the folders non-visible for them, let alone modify them.

      Just because you don't set users with admin rights, don't assume that the average user can do that on windows. Most windows users I've met, have set all their users in their PCs as admins. And this is the common practice in windowsland.

      But that is not a flaw of the design of Windows, it is just a buggy application.[messenger service]

      There is nothing buggy about this service. It does exactly what it was designed to do. To accept messages over UDP on privillidged ports 1021-1026. Spammers are using it daily to popup windows on millions of desktops with their advertising messages. MS Design flaw? Yes.

      Again, there is a bug in the software, it has nothing to do with the security model of UPnP.

      Did you even read the link I posted on grc.com? There is NO security model as far as UPnP is concerned.

      There is a DCOM bug that allows a buffer overflow exploit. Again, not a design flaw!

      DCOM is not needed by 99% of windows users. Yet it's on by default. That is a design failure.

      How can you claim they are useless, but if you remove'em, things break? they are either useless of useful. They can't be both at the same time.

      They are useless, but due to bad design they have to stay on, otherwise windows won't function properly. And remember: the more services you have running, the more you risk a system compromise if a cracker finds a bug in just one of them. You cann't crack what is not running. Unfortunately windows is a cracker's haven.

      Pure fud. There is none. My XP box, right now, has 3 accounts: mine, my father's, and my sister's. There is no other account.

      Yes, there are. I was talking about the OS specific accounts, not the ones created by you. These accounts are created by windows and are hidden to you. Some of them have SYSTEM privilidges! Go check them out. Imagine what a cracker would do with an account like that.

      It's not [IE integrated in windows] ! I don't know why users believe these things!

      Where have you been? IE *IS* integrated into windows. MS did it to counter the anti-trust lawsuit. So whether you use IE or not doesn't really matter. Any flaw in IE is a system wide flaw and could lead to a system compromise, even if you're just browsing your files (yes,your file manager uses IE libs and can even render HTML! Try it at home.).

      Most probably you have no idea what is a design flaw and what is a bug.

      Enlighten me Einstein!

      A 'design flaw' is when the design allo

      --
      VStrider.
    205. Re:Linux? by VStrider · · Score: 1

      What is pain the ass? to check out the 'run as administrator' check box? because that's all it takes to select non-administrator account.

      Many apps, will still not work with this hack(I agree with scudsuck, a poor rip-off of sudo).

      How is that a fault of the Windows O/S?[that many apps don't work upnprivilidged]

      Right now, I'm not sure whether you are a windows fanboy, or a troll.

      there is an equal amount of applications (I should say 90%, but I won't) that runs fine with non-admin privileges.

      Like what? Ms-Paint? Minesweeper? Get real...

      It is a fault of the application vendors that fail to provide support for non-admin accounts. Your argument would be valid if application vendors would be forced to run as admin.

      Oh so now you blame vendors for a Microsoft standard practice up until windows 98? Userspace in windows is a bad rip-off of *nix and is a new addition. Windows was never designed with this in mind. Plus, vendors cann't keep up with Microsoft changing things. If they did, they'd be out of business.

      And in Windows, you don't need to mount and unmount devices (an archaic concept), so 'sudo' is never needed.

      My god, you are indeed clueless. You call mounting an archaic concept??
      Suppose you are the sysop in a company doing DTP. You want your users to be able to use the cd-rom to process images but for obvious security reasons, you don't want them to execute stuff off a cd-rom. How do you go about it in windows? Well, you don't. Your options are a) to disable cd-rom access to all users, which isn't feasable since it'll prevent them from doing their work, and b) to allow them cd-rom access and hope they don't do anything mallicious.
      However in *nix, using the "archaic" mount as you called it, you can set the cd-rom to automount with the noexec option. The user won't have to do anything more than just putting the cd-rom in the drive and everything will just work(tm). Now though, there is a difference. They cannot execute binaries off the cd-rom and your workstations stay secure. "Archaic"? Get a clue!

      even down to issuing 'tickets' for a limited amount of time.

      Windows does not have this capability out of the box. If you claim it does, then it's a damn lie.

      First of all, how can you claim them to be unnessary? do you know the exact Windows architecture? I can tell you, as a Windows programmer, they are needed.

      I definitelly wouldn't want to work with you. You seem clueless about basic security, I can only imagine your code. No wonder most windows apps are like a swiss cheese.

      Secondly, IE is not a service, it is an application. Bypassing the fact that you present a buggy application as a core Windows service (which is not), IE is not intergrated into Windows. How many times do you have to be told?

      IE is based on the "explorer" service. So does windows explorer and the rest of the OS as far the GUI is concerned. Shut down the "explorer" service and tell me if IE works. Or if anything for that matter on your windows box works. Get a clue before you spew your misinformed rantings.

      I have proved all your points wrong. Deal with it.

      You proved one thing: you sir, are a clueless troll. That is my last post to you, have a nice day.

      --
      VStrider.
    206. Re:Linux? by Slack3r78 · · Score: 1

      You may want to check out Ubuntu, if you haven't. It uses pretty much the exact same user authentication scheme as OS X. Root account disabled by default, escalated privs only when necessary. Updates are handled by an applet, all the admin tools will prompt for a root pass when needed, and most OSS software can be installed from Synaptic, the GUI package manager.

    207. Re:Linux? by Slack3r78 · · Score: 1

      I was confused by the fact that you were replying to a post on the merits of Linux-style security then, my bad.

      I do stand by the fact that I see nothing particularly special about OS X style permission escalation within the Unix world. In fact, it essentially just puts a pretty face on sudo. And I'm well aware that Mandrake has used PAM and the like for years now (MDK was actually my first distro, back in the 6.5 release). I pointed out Ubuntu in particular because it goes a step farther (as does OS X) by disabling the root account by default. This prevents users from running as root entirely, thus minimizing the "I drug my System folder to the trash" problems.

      My point was primarily that OS X style priveledge assignment works well because it allows a user to run as a limited account by default without it being a complete pain, while still leaving the bar to screwing up the system high enough that it generally won't happen in normal usage. I got confused by the "OS X's security seems to work better" nature of your post since you were replying to someone making a similar point about Linux. Again, my bad. :-)

    208. Re:Linux? by ernst_mulder · · Score: 1

      The problem is that you're not entirely correct in this. The Mac is indeed quite secure out of the box but can become less and less secure after various pieces of software are installed. If some public domain startup thing is installed with o+w permissions in /Library/StartupItems for instance it would be trivial to install root-privileged stuff from a non-administrator account (just one example). The Mac is still quite safe because there's simply less bad software around but if every annoyed PC user would go Mac that would probably change, and the Malware/Spyware/Virus problem would simply move with them.

      Don't fool yourselves. The Mac is not safe because users do stupid things. People will provide their admin password to any diagog that pops up and klick OK on anything...

    209. Re:Linux? by master_p · · Score: 1

      Many apps, will still not work with this hack

      Wrong. All properly coded apps work fine. As I said before, you fail to realize that if the Windows design was broken, no app would work. It can't be working for some of the apps and not for others; that other apps must do something wrong.

      Right now, I'm not sure whether you are a windows fanboy, or a troll

      Don't try to evade the answer: why some apps work, and others don't? it's simply a failure of the app makers, which are much more in Windows and it shows (and there are a lot of old apps not programmed for Windows NT).

      Like what? Ms-Paint? Minesweeper? Get real...

      Is it me that is trolling or you? instead of arguments, all I get is inflamatory insulting comments. That is, if you have arguments...

      Oh so now you blame vendors for a Microsoft standard practice up until windows 98? Userspace in windows is a bad rip-off of *nix and is a new addition. Windows was never designed with this in mind. Plus, vendors cann't keep up with Microsoft changing things. If they did, they'd be out of business.

      Ah, I forgot that you talk about Windows 95. I am talking about a proper O/S, the mighty Windows NT, not a hack over DOS. In Windows NT, there is absolutely no problem for properly coded applications to run as admin, as non-admin or even remotely.

      My god, you are indeed clueless.

      Am I really clueless, or you are totally unaware of what goes on in Windows NT?

      You call mounting an archaic concept??

      Yes. Why should I have to mount anything? the CD rom should be automatically recognized. In fact, mounting a CD rom or not is irrelevant to execution rights from the device.

      Suppose you are the sysop in a company doing DTP. You want your users to be able to use the cd-rom to process images but for obvious security reasons, you don't want them to execute stuff off a cd-rom. How do you go about it in windows? Well, you don't. Your options are a) to disable cd-rom access to all users, which isn't feasable since it'll prevent them from doing their work, and b) to allow them cd-rom access and hope they don't do anything mallicious.

      Ha ha ha. That's an easy one: go to the computer management console, storage, removable storage, select the CD rom drive you wish and unselect the execution rights for anyone except the administrator.

      Windows does not have this capability out of the box. If you claim it does, then it's a damn lie.

      Just a random link, out of many, that talk about tickets under Kerveros: http://www.rothstein.com/drjbooks/drj546.htm. Tickets can even issue other tickets, or spawn tickets for a certain amount of time, or time of day, or whatever you want, basically. And I am not an expert on Windows NT security.

      I definitelly wouldn't want to work with you. You seem clueless about basic security, I can only imagine your code. No wonder most windows apps are like a swiss cheese.

      Instead of arguments, you prefer insults. That only shows your level.

      IE is based on the "explorer" service. So does windows explorer and the rest of the OS as far the GUI is concerned. Shut down the "explorer" service and tell me if IE works. Or if anything for that matter on your windows box works. Get a clue before you spew your misinformed rantings.

      You are totally misinformed. All your information are wrong. I wonder where do you get them (reminder: I am talking about NT):

      • any app can run as a service in Windows. It's a matter of configuration.
      • Running an app as a service does not mean that all apps have to use it.
      • there is no explorer service. I've looked in over 5 machines (mine at home, my two workstations at work, and two computers of my colleagues, and I see no 'explorer' service.
      • Windows Explorer is not IE. Windows Explorer does not have security bugs: it's just
    210. Re:Linux? by master_p · · Score: 1

      99% of windows apps will save their settings in the folder they were installed

      It's funny that you say that: all apps I have save their data in MyDocuments. Here is the list: MS Office, MSVC, DevC++, Firefox, Thunderbird, Nero, Norton Antivirus, Norton Utilities, WinRar, are some of the apps.

      Ah yes, I have GoldParser, which saves its data in the installation folder. But all this does only one thing; it strengthens my argument: Properly-coded apps save their data in the user's home folder, which is the MyDocuments one.

      don't forget that before windows 2000

      We are in 2005. Get used to it. Whining about pre Windows-NT is...stupid, to say the least.

      Just because you don't set users with admin rights, don't assume that the average user can do that on windows. Most windows users I've met, have set all their users in their PCs as admins. And this is the common practice in windowsland.

      So? how does that make Windows NT non-secure? Users can be as stupid as they like. It's not a fault of the designers of NT.

      By the way, the most popular O/S is the one that attracts the most un-knowledgable people in computers, because people generally want to do their job and they don't care about the O/S (so they accept what is the most popular choice).

      They are useless, but due to bad design they have to stay on, otherwise windows won't function properly.

      I dare you tell me one 'useless' service.

      And remember: the more services you have running, the more you risk a system compromise if a cracker finds a bug in just one of them.

      But that's what I've been telling from the beginning: It's not that the security model of Windows NT that is flawed, it is buggy software that allows exploits like buffer overflows.Bugs have nothing to do with design. A buffer overflow can break any Unix either, from Linux to Solaris to AIX.

      Yes, there are. I was talking about the OS specific accounts, not the ones created by you.

      So? Windows XP Pro comes with 3 accounts a guest account, an admin account and a remote help account. That's all there is. And there is no danger with those accounts, otherwise we would have heard about them.

      These accounts are created by windows and are hidden to you.

      These accounts are not activated, unless I logon to them.

      Go check them out. Imagine what a cracker would do with an account like that.

      I run as admin, I am full time on the net, and it's funny when I see hacker attempts. My firewall gets them all, and I usually send a 'hello world' message to them.

      IE *IS* integrated into windows.

      No matter what you say, IE is not part of Windows NT. Always from the technical point of view, not marketing point of view.

      yes,your file manager uses IE libs and can even render HTML! Try it at home.

      But that only concerns a buggy implementation of bitmaps that allow buffer overflows. Again, it's not a Windows NT security design problem.

      Enlighten me Einstein!

      I am trying, but I most probably talk to wall-type intelligence.

      A design flaw is also when the OS depends on many running services

      It's called 'software reuse'.

      many of which serve nothing

      From all your claims, that's the most ridiculus one: do you think that MS would spent time and money to implement it if it served nothing? come on!!!

      For example, if your box is compromised because of lets say the Time Service running, are you gonna cry bug?

      But it's a bug! How should I call it?

      You didn't need a Time Service in the first place!

      Why not? in an enterprise setting, all computers are synchonized with it, and when a new computer enters the network, it automatically gets the local time.

      This is more important than you can imagine. I ave to compile various apps at work on portable PCs. I

    211. Re:Linux? by pasamio · · Score: 1

      I think you'll find a lot of distros these days have these repositories, and for me its much easier for me to install stuff under my Debian box at times than it is under Windows. In fact, if I want a program, I more or less use APT to grab it. The issues they cited (Trinity College) is office incompatibilities and a few management tools. Slick interface? GNOME or KDE have a slick interface, they might have still been on the old Debian stable. Who knows, but if that is the case, then I agree that I can see why a 2002 to 2005 os switch was called for.

      --
      I always wondered where this setting was...
  2. Invite to the closing Party by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 3, Funny

    Gerald Ratner and Matthew Barrett both said they would be honoured to attend.

    --
    liqbase :: faster than paper
  3. In other news... by nek · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...the head of Intel visited by the Mafia, changes story next day. "I meant Windows! Windows!!" he bleats.

  4. Parent is *NOT* off topic. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and its not a troll.

    Don't mod it if you don't understand it.

    1. Re:Parent is *NOT* off topic. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe just don't post in rot13 and not expect some people to understand you? And don't tag the end with Nabalzbhf EBG13 xnezn juber and not expect people to mod you down. Oh, shit. Just got taken in by... flamebait.

    2. Re:Parent is *NOT* off topic. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is America. We speak english here.

    3. Re:Parent is *NOT* off topic. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No you don't. You speak some bastardised version of English that you call US English.

    4. Re:Parent is *NOT* off topic. by lisrael · · Score: 1

      This is America, huh?
      Looks like the internet to me...

    5. Re:Parent is *NOT* off topic. by Zonnald · · Score: 1

      Actually it is commonly beleived that the English language changed since 1776 and the US didn't.
      That is not to say they have not bastardised it in other ways though!

    6. Re:Parent is *NOT* off topic. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same thing.

      "World Wide Web" is just marketing hype.

      Kind of like how the "World Series" of baseball is just America and two Canadian teams.

    7. Re:Parent is *NOT* off topic. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Commonly beleieved by idiots, perhaps. The English language is whatever language is spoken by the English.

    8. Re:Parent is *NOT* off topic. by Zonnald · · Score: 1

      Ok forget you have proved to be less then able to spell.

      Here is but one source to establish my point:
      American English

      American English
      Also significant beginning around 1600 AD was the English colonization of North America and the subsequent creation of a distinct American dialect. Some pronunciations and usages "froze" when they reached the American shore. In certain respects, American English is closer to the English of Shakespeare than modern British English is. Some "Americanisms" that the British decry are actually originally British expressions that were preserved in the colonies while lost at home (e.g., fall as a synonym for autumn, trash for rubbish, frame-up which was reintroduced to Britain through Hollywood gangster movies, and loan as a verb instead of lend).

      The American dialect also served as the route of introduction for many native American words into the English language. Most often, these were place names like Mississippi, Roanoke, and Iowa. Indian-sounding names like Idaho were sometimes created that had no native-American roots. But, names for other things besides places were also common. Raccoon, tomato, canoe, barbecue, savanna, and hickory have native American roots, although in many cases the original Indian words were mangled almost beyond recognition.

      Spanish has also been great influence on American English. Armadillo, mustang, canyon, ranch, stampede, and vigilante are all examples of Spanish words that made their way into English through the settlement of the American West.

      To a lesser extent French, mainly via Louisiana, and West African, through the importation of slaves, words have influenced American English. Armoire, bayou, and jambalaya came into the language via New Orleans. Goober, gumbo, and tote are West African borrowings first used in America by slaves.

      Now go away.

  5. An hour a weekend? by yotto · · Score: 1

    As much as I love the MS hating, come on, what does he remove the spyware with, debug?

    This sound like a joke, and until he man comes to my house and tells me this to my face, I'll not believe him. An hour. Seriously? I don't know if I've spent an hour /total/ removing spyware.

    1. Re:An hour a weekend? by Vertdang · · Score: 1, Insightful

      No kidding. Install Ad-Aware SE. Run time 5-15 minutes... remove spyware. total time spent 10-20 minutes. Alternately, Install MS Antispy which monitors... total time spent removing = negligible. I'll bet his daughter is clicking every smiley download and waving kitty she comes across. Education = the antispyware

      --
      Statesmen serve to better the country and help the people.
      Politicians serve to better themselves and help friends.
    2. Re:An hour a weekend? by Orgazmus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Do _you_ have a daugther? Or a little sister?
      Its hell. Kill spyware once a week, format once every 3 months.

      --
      The system had the verbosity of HTML combined with all the readability of compiled assembly viewed as bitmap images
    3. Re:An hour a weekend? by Lennavan · · Score: 1

      It's on his daughter's computer though. He's probably trying to remove spyware programs like AIM and MSN messenger. Honestly have you ever tried removing one of those?

    4. Re:An hour a weekend? by st0rmshad0w · · Score: 1

      3 words:

      Teen. Age. Daughter.

      Surprised the machine is that easy to clean.

    5. Re:An hour a weekend? by BlogPope · · Score: 1

      I assume you don't have a daughter browsing the web then. I can spend several hours removing the crap from my parents computer the few weekends a year I come to back to visit.

      --
      My other car is a Popemobile
    6. Re:An hour a weekend? by thelost · · Score: 1

      there have been occassions where friends have so b0rked their computers with spyware and viruses that it can much longer than just an hour to fix it. I think also he may not have meant to be literal, just to suggest that spyware is a serious problem on PCs and takes up much more time fixing then it should.

      --
      Promote Charity on Myspace, Show Your Colours!
    7. Re:An hour a weekend? by jasper · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I spent an hour today at lunch trying to remove spyware from my 13yo cousins computer.

      With the reboots, multiple programs (lavasoft and spybot) updated, still couldn't get rid of pop-up windows. This computer hasn't been online yet a week. :(

      Don't worry, I have a plan.

    8. Re:An hour a weekend? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have not seen Aurora yet. Prepare to be humbled!
      I manage 400+ WinTel PCs and see spyware daily. I've lost weeks to this stuff since LOP came on the scene.

    9. Re:An hour a weekend? by RoadkillBunny · · Score: 1

      Neighter did I, but then I never bothered to remove it. For the amount of time I spend on windows, it waste of time.

      --
      Cheers,
      RoadkillBunny
    10. Re:An hour a weekend? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've, mainly in other people PC, even more

    11. Re:An hour a weekend? by pilgrim23 · · Score: 1


      I removed it from 2 machines today (corporate): I re-imaged them. Took about 1/2 hour each to return them to original state with Ghost then reload the user Profile (oh, P4 boxes running XP Pro). Of course this kills all files on the hard drive, and any local customizations but hey! Just write a procedure: "Do not keep stuff local" and you are fine. -till tomorrow... If you want to remove ALL of MyCoolWebSearch, MySearchBar, Or whatever the crap dujour is with out killing the whole machine and getting ALL of it out of there, I have not found a way. This sort of experience by the way is why during the day I am a mild mannered Windows geek, but at night I fire up a
      Dual CPU G5. I do NOT need the grief at home!

      --
      - Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
    12. Re:An hour a weekend? by Vertdang · · Score: 1, Insightful
      Sounds like a BHO (browser helper object) that keeps reinstalling other spyware.

      Try running MS Antispy beta from www.microsoft.com it has a section for the browser that'll get rid of those things.

      --
      Statesmen serve to better the country and help the people.
      Politicians serve to better themselves and help friends.
    13. Re:An hour a weekend? by jsmucker · · Score: 1

      YES YES YES , when there are over a 1000 of spyware running and its only been a week , Its happens

    14. Re:An hour a weekend? by Ponzicar · · Score: 2, Informative

      You haven't seen just how bad spyware infections can get. Trust me, an hour can easily be spent removing the most persistent infections.

      I do think that this guy should educate his daughter and take some preventive measures though. A hosts file that blocks known bad sites and an immunization feature from an antispyware program should help immensely.

    15. Re:An hour a weekend? by CableModemSniper · · Score: 1

      I spend no time removing spyware. Why? Firefox as the default browser + non-administrator as the default user. Installing stuff is slighty annoying (Egads! I have to right-click and select 'Run As') but it's like a brick wall as far as spyware is concernced.

      --
      Why not fork?
    16. Re:An hour a weekend? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty clever troll, dude. Caught a lot of people on that one!

    17. Re:An hour a weekend? by shellbeach · · Score: 1

      Surprised the machine is that easy to clean.

      Crap. If he's the head of Intel, he ought to know how to give his kid a non-privileged account, and never to give her the root password. That in itself will kill most spyware ...

      At the very least, you could make the kid clean the spyware off herself, teach her how to do it and what to look out for in future ...

    18. Re:An hour a weekend? by mankey+wanker · · Score: 1

      I don't understand.

      You seem to be knowledgeable about how to get rid of the various troublesome pests, but unable to prevent them from infesting your own machine at home. Are there more users of that machine than just yourself? Do they refuse to obey your simple rules in terms of safe computer usage?

      I almost never have any problems. And when people follow my computer use recommendations they don't have any problems either.

    19. Re:An hour a weekend? by Humorously_Inept · · Score: 1

      Orgazmus speaks the truth without exaggerating. Have your copy of HijackThis in hand and prepare for an ordeal.

      --

      ~Someday, I hope to be an aspiring author.
    20. Re:An hour a weekend? by vegaspctech · · Score: 1

      So he exaggerated. Have you never heard someone say that something took forever? Everyone exaggerates, all the time, and nobody cares. Follow? ;-)

      --

      Making the world a better place, one psychotic episode at a time.

    21. Re:An hour a weekend? by Burnzy · · Score: 1

      C'mon guys, the head of Intel's daughter... she's probably running a quad Xeon 360 turbo FX2 ultra. It should only take 15 mins to get rid of her spyware!

    22. Re:An hour a weekend? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why? he's a business man, not desktop support.

    23. Re:An hour a weekend? by nolife · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You can create shortcuts that integrate runas

      I have a user on my machines called IEUSER with very little privleges. You can create a shortcuts to replace your normal IE shortcuts to start IE as that user automatically with:

      C:\WINDOWS\system32\runas.exe /user:ieuser /savecred "C:\Program Files\Internet Explorer\IEXPLORE.EXE"

      Of course you can start any progam in this manner.
      The problem is when links are clicked from other applications, it starts IE being the default browser with my credentials. I have not figured out that one yet. On a side note, I leave IE as the defualt browser but have Kerio personall firewall set to request permission before allowing IE network access. This way, if a virus/spyware tries to call IE or the IE rending engine which is my default URL handler, I will be prompted by my firewall to allow access. If I did not actively click something to start this, I know something fishy is going on and investigate.

      --
      Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
    24. Re:An hour a weekend? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, imagine a beowulf cluster of those!

    25. Re:An hour a weekend? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope he doesn't play too many "tricky" computer games then, or he'll whack your head for taking away the popup windows *and* the games. ;-)

    26. Re:An hour a weekend? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why the gender bias? I've met just as many guys who are as clueless about security as girls. The wintel PC is the target of choice and even the metal doesn't have security as a top priority.

    27. Re:An hour a weekend? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know Windows is the worst operating system ever and all, but I have never gotten hit with spyware on my home computer. Ever. Hell, I've never gotten a computer virus. Presently I'm running XP SP1, and yet somehow I don't get any of those evil things that SP2 was supposed to fix. I really don't understand how people can do it. I actually *tried* to get a virtual machine infested with spyware running XP (no service pack), and I was unable to get it to the point where you'd have to go into safe mode to remove things, let alone image the computer, yet my neighbors can somehow manage to get IE to not open just 2 weeks after I've fixed it. From an entirely serious standpoint, where is all this spyware coming from, and how the hell do you get it? (And don't get me started about all those spam complaints)

    28. Re:An hour a weekend? by oh_the_humanity · · Score: 1

      I work for an ISP , and i get customers bringing there machines, that are so infected with spyware , that the machine runs like crap. its dog slow and takes 7 minutes to boot completely. Then the tools it takes to fix them run slow. and i end up having to run adaware spybot , teh list goes on and on repeatedly , to clean it out , that takes care of about 98% of the spyware. then i have to spend an hour or two deleteing the rest manually, and i better get every piece of it cause if i dont it all ocmes rushing back. so yes if this guys gets off cleaning the machine in an hour hes fucking lucky.

      --
      "When they invent bitch slaps that can go through a monitor you better f'ing duck" --deft (253558)
    29. Re:An hour a weekend? by fideli · · Score: 1
      ...until he man comes to my house...
      I'm pretty sure that if He-Man comes to your house and tells you that to your face, you'd believe him.
    30. Re:An hour a weekend? by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Format every 3 months?!? But then I'd have to reinstall ALL her games! The 4 year old can handle shoving disks in and clicking on play, but can't get through the half-dozen popup windows needed to install software... meaning I have to listen to yells of "Daddy! Daddy!" from the other room every time she put in a new disk... No, I run Adaware and windows update every week, but I'm not starting over from scratch!

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    31. Re:An hour a weekend? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      For kid usage, Linux really is a good idea.

      Both my kids grew up with nothing but Linux boxes over the past 8 years. Damage, spyware, and viruses just never happened. Never. Not once, in 8 years.

      Since you have to be root to do things like update software and install browser plugins, I'd occasionally have to do that myself, but that takes mere minutes per month and in return I got complete stability.

    32. Re:An hour a weekend? by Moofie · · Score: 1

      I have the same experience as your parent poster. I use a Powerbook at home, and I talked my GF into an iBook, because I have to fix Wintel PCs all day. I spend zero time administering my computers at home: They work. Period.

      I don't want to deal with updating three spyware blockers and my AV software twice a week. I don't want to deal with reinstalling Windows every six months. I have better things to do with my time, like have sex with said GF. (She REALLY likes her iBook.)

      There's a PC that we rarely use for games. Most of the time, I leave it turned off. Haven't missed it.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    33. Re:An hour a weekend? by shellbeach · · Score: 2, Funny

      why? he's a business man, not desktop support.

      Sure. But doesn't every father want to lock up his daughter's box??

    34. Re:An hour a weekend? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is so true. Its irritating, and the biggest reason this exists on XP, is because you cant control what the accounts can and cannot do effectivly as on a Mac OS 9/X.

      Either to allow them use of a legit function that they need you also have to enable them do something they shouldnt be touching (and what the malware loves) or you have to lock them out from legit uses and you have to get over and help them out all the time.

      Also you cant simply unlock a configuration option temporary, no you have to be an administrator. How hard is it to add a button or something that will let you unlock the specific option temporary to make the change?! Easiest way to do this currently, is to logout user, login as an administrator, change the user to a power user and then login as the user, change the option, logout, login as administrator again, change the user privledges to ordinary user again and then logout and login as the user.

      And no, you cant make the option system wide either asshould be, for instance the power settings, its beyound dumb, its sick!!

      Got to be really dumb people making decisions at Microsoft that should be fired, and the hiring crew should be replaced or retrained to follow the apple guidelines when looking for talents and hiring people.

      Anyway, next computer that will enter my familys house is a macintosh, and my little sister already made the switch to a nice iBook =)

    35. Re:An hour a weekend? by jericho4.0 · · Score: 1

      Ghost can help. It allows you to make an image of your windows machine on CD.

      --
      "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
    36. Re:An hour a weekend? by crimson30 · · Score: 1

      I've met just as many guys who are as clueless about security as girls.

      Of this, I have no doubt. But how often do you run into computer-knowledgeable females?

    37. Re:An hour a weekend? by Kenshin · · Score: 1

      Ya, I've had to do that too.

      But I actually convinced her to use Firefox when I built her new computer, and it's been (relatively) smooth sailing since. (Knock on wood.)

      --

      Does it make you happy you're so strange?

    38. Re:An hour a weekend? by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      Also you cant simply unlock a configuration option temporary, no you have to be an administrator.

      On XP, right-click, "Run as..."

      It's not as smooth as OSX for control panel settings, but it DOES work. You don't have to log out and log in as another user - and if you did, there's fast user switching for that (the feature so handy, Apple copied it from Microsoft).

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    39. Re:An hour a weekend? by pNutz · · Score: 1

      Make sure you have a Plan B

      Explain that this CD will remove his spyware

      Afterwards it should be easier to get him to go along with Plan A

      --
      Death and danger are my various breads and various butters.
    40. Re:An hour a weekend? by mankey+wanker · · Score: 1

      Without offense, the part where you state that you reinstall windows every six months tells me you do not know what you are doing.

    41. Re:An hour a weekend? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Either that, or he isnt the sole user of the machine at home.

      You have to leave all the insecure ActiveX crud on because then the rest of the idiots in the house can't use yahoo launch, now can they? You also have to let them use an admin account so they can install their games and porn.

      All this means that next time you use the machine there's like 30 search bars on it.

    42. Re:An hour a weekend? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right on. Is everybody else on Slashdot totally oblivious to the fact that you can do this with Windows? Running as a limited user eliminates just about all spyware infections, and those that do get past will only be able to infect your user's profile. I have not even had this happen yet, on both Win2k and WinXP.

    43. Re:An hour a weekend? by mankey+wanker · · Score: 1

      Two scenarios:
      1: If I wanted to fix it it might take me some time. I might do it to learn new things, or to learn how to handle specific problems.
      2: If I just wanted to work and I had crap all over the main hard drive (spyware, trojans, worms, etc). It would take me something like 3-6 minutes to recover it from an image of the drive. By the time I come back from making tea, I'd be set to do my thing again.

      Now in actuality scenarios 1 and 2 never come up. I haven't had a box with a problem in over 4 years. I owe it all to proper backup techniques and safe computer use protocols. And as long as only adults use my home systems I expect perfect compliance with my protocols. During parties and such, the computers are off limits to one and all. I keep one box open sometimes just to provide access to my music server. Really, this isn't that hard.

      Sometimes I think that Slashdotters like to pretend that things are harder than they really are. Being prepared is cool and one does not want to underestimate security issues. But let's be reasonable in terms of what is actually involved:
      1. Firewall (available for free)
      2. Anti-virus and anti-spyware programs (available for free)
      3. Backup imaging (for 99%-100% solid you pay)

      So seriously, how hard is that to implement when you first set up a system? That's maybe 4-5 extra pieces of software that you need to save your ass when a problem arises. You implement these things or you pay the price later on. I would actually expect the average Slashdot reader to have done these things - I'm not saying the average computer user, I am saying the average user of this site. And it seems to me that those 3 basic steps are worth taking regardless of what platform you happen to be on. The one that's a "maybe" is the anti-virus software, but then again why not do it anyway even if your platform is not the number one targeted platform? The absence of a firewall or proper backup routine is the way only an idiot would administrate a machine.

      Now I play with Windows and occasionally with Linux - are Mac users running their boxes with the idiot method? No firewall and no backup?

    44. Re:An hour a weekend? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every time I run into a mirror. Ow. Stupid glass.

      Or my advisor, or my last prof, or my new research prof. Though they tend to move out of the way.

  6. My Commodore 64 never got viruses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    If it did, I just rebooted.

    1. Re:My Commodore 64 never got viruses by takev · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually the commodore 64 had a lot of viruses from what I remember. It attached itself on each floppy you inserted.
      But in those days you didn't lose 160 GB of data.

    2. Re:My Commodore 64 never got viruses by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      I remember at least 1 Atari 800XL virus too, some assembly coder friend was trying to decompile it.

  7. Why not Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Uhmm...because Linux is absolutely unusable compared to Mac OS X?

    Because the people we're talking about don't give a fuck about using whatever hardware they want?

    1. Re:Why not Linux? by iswm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is rather untrue. I find Linux very usable. I find OSX very usable. It's just a matter of getting used to one. It's been a few years since I've switched to Linux from Windows, and now I can't use Windows for the life of me. I stumble around through it like, well, someone who's never used it before. Since I am used to Linux, I find it much more usable than Windows. Someone who is used to Windows will find it more usable than Linux. Same goes for any other OS's. Catch my drift?

      --
      Buckethead
    2. Re:Why not Linux? by elong87 · · Score: 0

      What part of MAC OS X is the best don't you understand. It is so great never crashes...except for that Tiger 10.4.1 update...So ya.

    3. Re:Why not Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      OS X on the other hand is easy. It works and is easier to use then OS X.

      I disagree, Linux is easy. It works and is easier to use then Linux.

    4. Re:Why not Linux? by wrf3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Then why can't Red Hat Fedora Core 3 play sound on my new Dell desktop? How much time (that I don't have), will I have to spend to get Linux to where it does everything Mac OS X does without any effort on my part?

    5. Re:Why not Linux? by spectral · · Score: 0, Troll

      Please tell me how you got Mac OS X playing sound on your new Dell laptop. When Mac OS X can do that, then you have a right to complain.

      Just because Dell uses shit for parts, that only support windows, and Mac hardware almost always only supports mac os, doesn't make it Linux's fault.

      Also, and this is where I start to troll, the rest is serious: RH and Fedora can go suck a nut. Worst. Distros. ever.

    6. Re:Why not Linux? by Temkin · · Score: 1

      now I can't use Windows for the life of me. I stumble around through it like, well, someone who's never used it before.



      It only gets worse too... I started playing with Linux when it was v0.95a, and went on to master SunOS 4.x and various flavors of Solaris up to present day, as well as MacOS X.2 and up. The last version of Windows I was any good with was 3.11 WFW, and my Mom still expects me to fix her XP machine...

    7. Re: Why not Linux? by Alwin+Henseler · · Score: 1
      Uhmm...because Linux is absolutely unusable compared to Mac OS X?

      Sorry to disappoint you. I happen NOT to be a proud owner of one of those glorious Apple-built boxes, instead I have to make do with common x86 'crap'. But since I use x86 hardware, that makes Mac OSX totally useless to me, since last I heard, Mac OSX simply doesn't run on x86 (emulating aside).

      On the other hand, Linux does perfectly well on my box. Maybe Mac OSX is way better (I wouldn't know, no experience with OS X myself), but I'm pretty happy with how Linux works for me.

      Because the people we're talking about don't give a fuck about using whatever hardware they want?

      If you mean most people don't care about what exactly is under the hood, then you're right. But some things they care about are plain and simple:

      • Bang-per-buck. Maybe Apple/PowerPC hardware is better quality-wise, but sheer numbers make x86 rule in the bang-per-buck department.
      • That it runs software they already have. For most folks, that means something that can run DOS and Win32-based software. Am I correct that Mac OSX doesn't run that either? Nor does Linux in any simple manner, BTW. And yes I know some popular games have Mac versions too. But let's face it, if you're an active gamer, your list of games to play becomes a lot shorter when you switch to Apple hardware.

      Not to bash OS X or Apple in any way. Just remember that at the time being, it ONLY comes as a complete package (hardware, + OS that runs on it). OSX on anything besides Apple hardware doesn't fly, and x86 binaries on Apple hardware don't fly.

      Hell, I'd seriously consider buying PowerPC based hardware myself. 2 things kept me from that sofar: 1) Pricing (bang-per-buck), and 2) having to toss out almost ALL software I currently have. Note that this is one reason for me to switch to Linux - to make the underlying hardware less important.
    8. Re:Why not Linux? by Moofie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Wow, with users like you, it's hard to imagine how Linux got the reputation of being pretty unfriendly to work with.

      Your post just makes it feel like you're giving me a big, warm hug...

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    9. Re:Why not Linux? by spectral · · Score: 1

      What did I say that was so bad? (seriously, I'm not trying to be an ass here). Up until the comment about Fedora, I was making counterpoints to his claims.

      I've not had a problem getting linux to work with all of my hardware on most distros. The exception being any RedHat since 7. Nothing's ever worked out of the box. Mandrake is usually very good about it. Even debian has always had drivers available for what I needed. I haven't tried RedHat in a couple years, so maybe Fedora's better than RH used to be, but I've heard nothing but complaining about Fedora Core 2, so why would I want to switch to that?

      He said something stupid. Obviously Mac OS is 'just going to work', because they control the HW and the OS. Windows never 'just works', but it comes close enough becaues of hours spent slaving away by developers trying to work through its inconsistencies (I'm a bit bitter, I'm one of them). Linux based operating systems usually have only volunteers working for them, and yet manage to still somewhat keep up with most mainstream things.

      I've gotten linux running on several laptops. I blame Dell if it's making things that are using strange parts that don't work with Linux yet.

    10. Re:Why not Linux? by flithm · · Score: 1

      Dmix necessary for most sound cards? I don't think so, unless by "most sound cards" you mean "really freakin' old sound cards." Almost every modern card, including the on board sound on every single motherboard I've used in the past 2 or so years, my 5 year old Sound Blaster Live, etc, do not need dmix to mix multiple streams automatically, and hardware accelerated.

      But, having said that, you're right, there are some cards that need software stream multiplexing. And in that case, check here. I've used this guide to set up dmix on a really old card I had laying around. The guide is very easy to follow, and took me maybe 5 to 10 minutes including the time it took me to google for the appropriate info, and play a couple songs (simultaneously) afterwards to test it out.

      One thing I realize though... if a soundcard is so crappy as to not support hardware mixing, this is generally a good indication that its sound quality may be... less than desirable.

    11. Re:Why not Linux? by spectral · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ah, sorry. there is one piece of hardware: my logitech quickcam. The single developer of the phillips driver that supports the quickcam was somewhat rudely 'forced out' of being a kernel contributor with his module, because it had a binary component. He thus stopped development on it.

      This item normally works fine in Windows (with drivers from Logitech). However, to counter point.. I've never been able to get my apple wireless keyboard to work in Windows, while it works just fine in linux (though it wasn't the easiest to set up, until I discovered kbluetooth).

      But other than those two, everything else HAS 'just worked' with linux. No driver cds. I plugged in a usb->bluetooth adapter, and turned on my mouse.. kbluetooth recognized it and it worked. I changed video cards, and it just worked (though I went from ati->ati.. I guess otherwise I'd have had to follow the instructions and type a command at the command prompt). I installed a firewire card AND a usb 2.0 card, and both worked without any additional drivers. My SB Live works just fine, with no additional drivers. My generic network card: just fine.

      I don't know why I'm bothering to write all this.. so many have even better stories, I'm sure. But really.. if the person bought something that's as windows centric as most dells tend to be, I don't blame Linux for not supporting it, I blame Dell for not supporting Linux.

    12. Re:Why not Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well said.

      if you want a lightweight distro (and by lightweight i mean easy enough for noobs; by no means is this a minimalist distribution), one with which you can expect the essentials (networking, sounds, etc.) to work fine without any tinkering, try a SUSE distro, they have some of the more recent versions (but probably not 9.3) freely downloadable. i got it working on a dell laptop without any issue (well other than shrinking that bastard ntfs partition... is there anything good about windows?)

    13. Re:Why not Linux? by damiam · · Score: 2, Insightful
      No non-techie installs their own OS. Either it comes preconfigured with the machine (Windows, OSX) or they get a techie friend to do it (Windows/OSX upgrades, Linux). Either way, the difficuluty of configuring dmix isn't really relevant. What matters is the ease with which someone can actually use the computer when it's set up.

      For that, I think that Linux can easily meet the needs of basic web browsing, word processing, spreadsheet use, and media playing, which is all that many of computers are used for. If you're a set-in-your-ways Windows power user, need to run specialized apps or view ActiveX-based web pages, or want to play games, then Linux probably won't work for you. Then again, neither will OSX.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    14. Re:Why not Linux? by wrf3 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I didn't say that I got Mac OS X to play sound on a Dell. I said that Linux couldn't play sound on a Dell. Mac OS X works just fine on my three PowerBooks, 2 iMacs, and iBook. Windows networking works on my Macs right out of the box. I'll have to spend time to figure out how to make Linux work.

      And that's the problem with Linux. It's like a TR7 that a friend used to have; it's a great car if you want to spend more time working on it than driving it. He would drive from New Jersery to Virginia to see his girlfriend, and then spend all weekend working on his car so that he could get back home.

    15. Re:Why not Linux? by cortana · · Score: 1

      It sounds like your sound card is a piece of shit. As much as I hate, hate, hate Creative Labs, their SB Lives have good hardware mixing capabilities that the Linux drivers can use out of the box.

    16. Re:Why not Linux? by nametaken · · Score: 1

      This is inevitably where morons who don't actually know anything start to trash the distro you used or the laptop you bought. Really, there's always a good chance, no matter what distro or PC manufacturer, that you'd going to end up wrestling with hardware. Its an unfortunate reality.

      On the other hand, you can't really say that OSX is better because of this, because you haven't tried putting OSX on that dell laptop either. See how well it "just works". :)

      If you buy a machine with an OS on it, chances are good everything will play nice. A mac with OSX on it... good. A PC with XP on it... good. A PC with linux on it... just as good. Unfortunatly when you start mixing and matching, you'll probably have to be ready to fix stuff.

    17. Re:Why not Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I just replaced my old Audigy (which has hardware mixing) with a new 'pro-sumer' style envy24-based M-audio Audiophile 2496.

      Superior in most respacts, but doesn't support hardware mixing. (I'll probably put the audigy back in and use both of them simulaniously.. Alsa rocks)

      Most cheaper cards don't support it either. Most onboard cards.. which is what most people end up using.

      The soundblaster/audigy line of cards do make very good linux cards and are cheap.

    18. Re:Why not Linux? by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      My power book runs crazy slow with OSX and it's not too old.

      On a far lower spec Compaq laptop Linux runs far better (albiet with a GUI that could justifyably be called hard to use). Maybe our idea of "Just Working" is different, but opening an email app and a web-browser should not cause massive slow down, and I would say any machine that runs OSX with only 128MB of ram is a far cry from just working. I deffinatly spend more time waiting for swap then I spent entering in a few wizards during a Linux install (even thought they were scary text based diolog boxes).

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    19. Re:Why not Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Try putting OSX on your dell, oh yeah you can't because Apple supports less than 1% of the possible hardware combinations that any PC does.

      Comparing Apples hardware support against Linux on the PC is like comparing a PS2 to Apple, my PS2 Has NEVER crashed even once, so why does OSX?

      I wonder how Apple would fair if they did try and wrangle the PC monster? probably the same as Windows and Linux I imagine. In fact I propose their hardware support would be *worse* than Windows and Linux. Microsoft is dominant so manufacturers build for Windows, Linux has tens of thousands of individuals working on making the thousands of various pieces of hardware work, what would Apple do? They don't have the developers to write drivers for every crazy proprietry piece of hardware out there and they don't have the market for manufactures to do it for them.

      I would say that if OSX ever did move out of it's little hardware world its hardware support and by extension stability would be no better than Linux.

    20. Re:Why not Linux? by moranar · · Score: 1

      Well, I haven't ever tried a Dell, but I still find my Mandriva 2005 installation to work out of the box with my integrated soundcards, allowing for hardware (or software, don't know nor care) mixing. I didn't have to configure jack shit.

      Complaining about an "old" distribution when newer ones with better hardware detection are out leads you to the obvious answer.

      Oh, if you do want Fedora, I suggest checking out FC 4 as soon as it comes out, which should be shortly.

      --
      "I think it would be a good idea!"
      Gandhi, about Internet Security
    21. Re:Why Not Linux? by ssj_195 · · Score: 1
      Weird - I open up Synaptic, search for Firefox, mark it for installation (and do the same for any other software) and click Apply. Once its done, all apps are neatly categorised in the "K"-menu (Firefox is under Internet), rather than just being neatly splurged onto the end of the menu list. If for whatever reason I was a desktop or quicklaunch entry, I simply drag it off the menu to where I want it. Also, I can quickly run any app I want just by typing the name in the "Run command" box in the kicker, due to the fact that all programs go in the same place, rather than being placed haphazardly in random locations outside of your path.

      Simpler directory structure? Set up Konqueror to show only the Home folder, and then make subdirectories for Pictures, Films, Music, whatever.

      Your comment about OO.o is so trivial and petty that I won't even bother to address it, suffice to say that there are doubtless dozens of little things that OO.o can do that Word cannot. If it's that urgent, file a bug report - it has a damn sight better chance of getting incorporating into OO.o than into Word.

      Also, thus whole "tweak and tune" to get things like an Office Environment, Web Browser, e-mail, calendar etc - most Linux installs have these set-up by default.

    22. Re:Why not Linux? by arminw · · Score: 1

      So how is a non-geek user supposed to know which of the various flavors of Linux to get. Which one will work with no more computer smarts needed than to re-install Windows for the ump-teenth time? Will the hapless user get all their hardware peripherals, such as printers, cameras and MP3 player to work without knowing how to edit a config file somewhere?

      --
      All theory is gray
    23. Re:Why not Linux? by arminw · · Score: 1

      ..I would say any machine that runs OSX with only 128MB of ram is a far cry from just working...

      When was the last time that Apple sold a computer with only 128MB of RAM? Back in OS9 days? Are you so poor that you can't afford to put a 256MB RAM chip into your PowerBook?

      --
      All theory is gray
    24. Re:Why not Linux? by wild_berry · · Score: 1

      :-)

      So you've not heard nothing but complaints abouto Fedora Core 2, I liked it. It was stable and happy on my system and it all worked from the install (ATi Rage 128 Pro card and Turtle Beach Santa Cruz with an Athlon Thunderbird 1200). FC3 is better, and I expect FC4 to improve on that again.

    25. Re:Why not Linux? by poofyhairguy82 · · Score: 1
      So how is a non-geek user supposed to know which of the various flavors of Linux to get.

      Let them ask a Geek. They are all over the world and the internet, ready to offer advice.

      Which one will work with no more computer smarts needed than to re-install Windows for the ump-teenth time?

      Most of the popular ones, or none depending on your needs/hardware/desires. Just like any other OS.

      Will the hapless user get all their hardware peripherals, such as printers, cameras and MP3 player to work without knowing how to edit a config file somewhere?

      Maybe depending on their hardware. All of my stuff works. Plug and play. I help as a moderator on the Ubuntu forum so I know that people has stuff that doesn't work. But I've also experianced hardware that refused to work in XP as well (not same hardware, in fact one thing (a printer) works in Linux for me when it wouldn't in Windows because of bad drivers.)

      If it works, the user gets a great, free OS with tons of free software. If it doesn't work well enough Windows gets reinstalled. Life is tough sometimes.

    26. Re:Why not Linux? by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1
      You know for most sound cards, if you want more then one application to make sound at one time you have to configure dmix?

      This is configured automatically in Fedora Core 4 (or will be when it's out in a month or so). It's very likely that other distributions will follow suit soon afterwards.

      Yes Linux has problems. Any serious Linux user or developer will admit that. But these days they're being bopped on the head with quite some speed.

      I also question the logic behind MacOS X being a "fix" for security. Apples security track record is atrocious - more than once they've shipped remote code execution exploits through Safari, there have been remote root holes left unpatched for months etc etc. I mean, what makes anybody think that the Macs relative "security" is anything but a side-effect of their obscurity?

    27. Re:Why not Linux? by _|()|\| · · Score: 1
      When was the last time that Apple sold a computer with only 128MB of RAM? Back in OS9 days?

      According to the Wayback Machine, the iBook came with 128MB as recently as September 2003 (shipping with OS X 10.2). The eMac came with 128MB as recently as April 2004 (shipping with OS X 10.3).

    28. Re:Why not Linux? by donscarletti · · Score: 1

      I have more than one application mixing multiple program's sound outputs and I've never heard of dmix before or even have it installed. Something tells me your argument is a little deceptive.

      --
      When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
    29. Re:Why not Linux? by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Here's the problem. I can walk into Comp USA and get a pre-installed Doze box. I can walk to the other end of the store and get a pre-installed Mac. But where are the pre-installed Linux machines? *crickets chirping* Once Linux is set up, it's not really any harder than Doze, except for a learning curve and the specialized uses you mention, but setting it up can be a problem. Nobody HAS to set up Doze or OSX.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    30. Re:Why not Linux? by arminw · · Score: 1

      Interesting...

      My old PB Wallstreet came with 256MB and it was slow. When I added another 256MB to that, it made a big difference. I don't use it any longer though it actually still works, because its lid will no longer stay open without being propped up by a book or something and its battery is long dead. More RAM will generally speed up most any computer.

      --
      All theory is gray
    31. Re:Why not Linux? by Cookeisparanoid · · Score: 1

      I once installed a distro of Mandrake which totalled my cd rom so I would say linux does have problems with hardware.
      Before you start saying Apple has control over the hardware you should check out how much kit just plug and plays (and not in the windows plug and pray sense) on Macs, the Apple developers have spent a long time making all sort of dievices just work.

    32. Re:Why not Linux? by Slime-dogg · · Score: 1

      I can't really agree with you, though. The way to do things are documented, but they aren't automatic. Automatic stuff has been in the works for ages, and I'd say that a Suse install mostly works.

      Your analogy of Linux to a TR7 is flawed. Once you get Linux up and running, seldomly will you have to do anything to keep it up and running. It will not crash on you, unless you have an actual hardware problem. You don't have the problems with random worms shutting it down, and it doesn't slowly decay until it needs a reboot.

      --
      You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
    33. Re:Why not Linux? by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Yup. Fedora Core has always been extremely friendly to me, including out-of-the-box support for everything except hardware accelerated video (guess why). The only hardware-related problem I had were random crashes - due to the system HDD being irreparably damaged.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    34. Re:Why not Linux? by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      True. The majority of the Linux crowd will gladly help other people install/configure/troubleshoot Linux. After all, it helps the crowd by making it bigger (if the new user happens to like Linux), it helps the user by showing him how life outside of Windowsland is and it helps making Linux more widely known.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    35. Re:Why not Linux? by wrf3 · · Score: 1

      The way to do things are documented...

      I'm sure they are. I can either spend my time hunting for the documentation, or getting work done.

      Once you get Linux up and running...

      I've been using and programming computers for 30+ years. The thrill of digging into a new system "because it's there" lost its allure some time ago. I want my computer to enable me to do work, not to provide a playground for twiddling and tweaking.

    36. Re:Why not Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So just pay the $200 for Windows and move on...

      If you have the experience you claim you have, you should know how difficult it is to develop software that runs on any kind of hardware in any kind of combinations. Remember Linux runs on a whole lot more systems than Intel boxes. The only reason OS X works out of the box, is that it is on the box and has been developed for the box (and nothing else).

      I mainly like the price of Linux: $0. For my servers it installs like a breeze since I make sure that I am not using exotic Windows only hardware. Even if I have to spend some time, it pays back big time both in license fees and stability.

      For most desktops and laptops I just pay the M$ tax because I can't be bothered with all the headache of customization.

      To those of you, that claim that OS X (or Linux) is so safe. Don't be fooled. It is just a matter of market share that makes you an interesting target for malware creating assholes. Sure in Linux the whole community will come together to fix holes as soon as they are discovered, but with OS X you are still at the mercy of 1 company.

    37. Re:Why not Linux? by CatOne · · Score: 1

      Why not just through more RAM in there and get a machinen that's 5x faster?

      Calling it slow because you're paging all the time due to 128 MB of RAM is silly. $50 and your problem is totally gone. Why suffer?

    38. Re:Why not Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MacOS isn't going to play sound on your new Dell either.

      Michael

    39. Re:Why not Linux? by SocietyoftheFist · · Score: 1

      You are ignoring the fundamental problem with Linux, same problem that has existed for as long as I can remember and that people keep saying is getting better, support for new hardware always lags behind Windows and the Mac. Linux will see critical mass when I go buy any piece of hardware and there is a device driver on the media that ships with it.

    40. Re:Why Not Linux? by gbulmash · · Score: 1
      Weird - I open up Synaptic, search for Firefox, mark it for installation (and do the same for any other software) and click Apply. Once its done, all apps are neatly categorised in the "K"-menu (Firefox is under Internet), rather than just being neatly splurged onto the end of the menu list.

      If I go to the Firefox web site with Windows, download the installer, and run the installer I got from the Firefox site, it "just works". If I do it with Linux, I apparently need to go through a more convoluted and non-obvious process. Synaptic? What's that? This is supposed to support your argument? Simpler directory structure? Set up Konqueror to show only the Home folder, and then make subdirectories for Pictures, Films, Music, whatever.

      That would be simple user file arrangement. But what about my http doc root in Apache? In Windows, that's in C:\Program Files\Apache\ unless I manually change it. In Windows, I can usually find everything in C:\Program Files\[name of app or distributor]. I'm not hunting around /var /usr /etc to see where which distro and which app put what file or directory.

      Your comment about OO.o is so trivial and petty that I won't even bother to address it, suffice to say that there are doubtless dozens of little things that OO.o can do that Word cannot.

      Few, in my experience. One of the reasons MS Office is so huge and bloated is because it does so many things, tries to be so many things to so many people. 99% of it is annoying, but sometimes...

      If it's that urgent, file a bug report - it has a damn sight better chance of getting incorporating into OO.o than into Word. First, it would be a feature request, not a bug report. And how do you think so many features got incorporated into Word? Microsoft may seem like a huge monopoly, but it also has a huge marketing department that runs huge numbers of focus groups and user advisory panels.

      The process of getting the feature added may be more transparent with OO.o, but it's just as much of a turkey shoot. Unless I want to learn to program and hack the internals of OO.o or figure out a way to write a plug-in that does it, I'm limited to waiting for someone to say "gee, it would be good to add that feature" and then either assign it or add it themselves. If I take off the "unless I want to learn to program...", it's the same boat I'm in with Microsoft.

      Also, thus whole "tweak and tune" to get things like an Office Environment, Web Browser, e-mail, calendar etc - most Linux installs have these set-up by default.

      No, they offer a bunch of options, but few have been "out of the box" useful in my experience. Not saying that Windows always is. But if you need to tweak and tune, I find it a LOT less confusing to do it in Windows than in Linux, and if you're just doing it for yourself instead of an office-wide install, I find Windows faster to get up and running with my choice of apps and configured the way I like it.

      Linux has its strengths, I'm not saying it doesn't. But when people's minds jumpt to Apple as a Microsoft alternative instead of Linux, I find it VERY understandable. Linux has a well-earned reputation for being a DIY operating system and still has rough edges. The big, corporate, operating systems and applications don't just have traction because they're established in the workplace. They have it because they've spent years listening to customers, making their apps work the way customers want, and are driven by a "be adopted or die" economic reality that many open-source applications don't have hanging over their heads.

      Now mod me down -1 Troll.

      - Greg

    41. Re:Why not Linux? by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      If I need to add more RAM is that just working ?

      P.S. I did add the RAM, and then it worked, after buying RAM, and opening up the case and adding it.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
  8. Mr. Otellini, the Board will see you now. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Prefessional sepeku?

    1. Re:Mr. Otellini, the Board will see you now. by ACNiel · · Score: 1

      The quote is:

      "If you want to fix it tomorrow, buy something else."

      Note the lack of "don't" in the statement. Even in context of the question, that whole statment is open for interpretation, and not a clear endorsement for Apple.

      Buy something other than what? What he is obviously endorsing :"'Should we buy an Apple?' 'Sure, if you want crap buy something else [Apple].'"

      Something other than the question; "'Should we buy an Apple?' 'If you want to fix it tomorrow, buy something else [other than an Apple].'"

      They are both reasonable interpretations of the quote.

    2. Re:Mr. Otellini, the Board will see you now. by CarlHungus · · Score: 1

      I'm a bit partial to Apple but I couldn't help but interpret this as a dig at Apple Computers (maybe I'm a bit defensive).

      It reminded me of that RVB Switch spoof (http://www.roosterteeth.com/archive/). It was almost as if he said "sure buy an Apple but...If you want to fix IT[The Apple] tomorrow, buy something else."

      It's OK if it's an iPod (I've had 2 replaced immediately, no questions asked) but if something bad goes wrong with any of your big Apple hardware, chances are, you won't be able to fix it yourself and it will involve a long an expensive stint down at the service centre.

      Personally, I think Mr. Otellini won't have any trouble with the Board.

    3. Re:Mr. Otellini, the Board will see you now. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And apparently we are the only two that can read.

      I think only on /. can their groupthink outweigh their groupthink.

      It should be obvious that he wouldn't go against the overlords. Any sane /.er knows it is impossible to break the corporate mentality. That is the basis of all /. conspiracies.

      But it is stronger to think that an individual would chose to buck the system.

      Depsite all the evidence, they are siding with ambguity. /.ers want to feel happy, that they are slowly winning the battles, swaying the tide, (however slightly) more than they want to believe corporate America (world?) hates them and everything they stand for.

  9. Great idea. by millennial · · Score: 2, Funny

    Hey, my car keeps running out of gas. Let's get a horse.

    But seriously, Windows was essentially designed to be insecure. People wanted a system that was easy to use, and didn't want to have to deal with unlocking all sorts of security measures just to get networking done. Eventually, people started exploiting the lack of security, and that's why it's so bad now.

    I suppose a better analogy would be:
    Hey, someone keeps breaking in and stealing my wallet. Let's put all of our money under the bed.
    Doesn't really solve the present problem; just (temporarily) avoids it.

    --
    I am scientifically inaccurate.
    1. Re:Great idea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      last i checked, it was a no-brainer to get networking done on my mac. in fact, all my other macs are visible and accessible to it without any need for "unlocking all sorts of security measures".

    2. Re:Great idea. by millennial · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      That's funny; I could have sworn I was talking about what they DIDN'T do with Windows, because they wanted to keep it simple... but you can go ahead and say whatever you want, after all.

      --
      I am scientifically inaccurate.
    3. Re:Great idea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and my point was that Mac OS is easy and secure, so there's no excuse for the joke Windows is

    4. Re:Great idea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More like - Hey somebody keeps cutting the screen out of our door and stealing our money. Lets keep our money inside in a safe, instead of lying loose on a table on the porch.

    5. Re:Great idea. by MrScience · · Score: 1

      It was designed to be insecure, when your running as administrator. Of course the admin account lets you do/install anything. Would you let your kids run Linux under a root account?!

      People, install your main applications under administrator privilages, then run day-to-day as a regular user. If you reduce your exposed area of attack using the tools built into the operating system, you'll find yourself under much fewer attacks.

      --

      You quitting proves that the karma kap worked. The most annoying of the whores shut up. --CmdrTaco

    6. Re:Great idea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet Mac OS X has easier networking mainly due to bonjour/zeroconf and is arguably simpler to use.
      A temporary fix? Mac OS has a lot more security measures in it's infrastructure due to it's BSD roots than windows so if you're going for the "oh it's just because they aren't as popular arguement" you' d be as wrong as most of the people using that one to critising Macs and OSS.

    7. Re:Great idea. by Thnikkaman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I've tried that. The problem is that half the applications won't even let you install as a limited user and usually if you install it as an admin you have to run it as an admin. Windows is a complete joke when trying to run as a limited user, especially for those who have limited computer knowledge. Try explaining to dear old mom how to change the install directory to a seperate folder for each person. OS X lets you be secure running as an admin and root is not the default account as administrator is with windows.

    8. Re:Great idea. by temojen · · Score: 1
      Hey, my car keeps running out of gas. Let's get a horse.

      More like "Hey, my 1968 Beaumont keeps running out of gas. Let's get a Prius.

    9. Re:Great idea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, he got it right, you missed his point.

      You: Windows is powerful and easy, thats why it has security holes

      Him: Mac is powerful and easy too, but doesn't have security holes.

      You: I didn't say windows was hard.

    10. Re:Great idea. by fermion · · Score: 1

      If we go with near past stupid trends, the better analogy would be hey, my Hummer keeps running out of gas, perhaps I should get a diesel mercedes. Of course, the family would quite having to stuff ourselves full of hamburgers and french fries so that we could fit in a normal size car, but that is a small price to pay.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    11. Re:Great idea. by quanticle · · Score: 1

      Great idea, except for the part where there isn't really a substitute for su. And no, "run as" doesn't count.

      Also, most Windows apps expect the user to be Administrator, or they either won't run or will run half-assed.

      --
      We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
    12. Re:Great idea. by MichaelGospatrick · · Score: 1

      > Hey, my car keeps running out of gas. Let's get a horse. Don't knock horses. Although not as fast as your average automobile, their speed is quite sufficient for the needs of the average commuter.

      --
      My genetic programming website: http://www.helpmefigurethisout.com/
    13. Re:Great idea. by MichaelGospatrick · · Score: 1

      Or I can not use the preview button, and look like an idiot.

      --
      My genetic programming website: http://www.helpmefigurethisout.com/
    14. Re:Great idea. by millennial · · Score: 1

      I almost commented on that, but figured I'd let you do it for me. Thanks :B

      --
      I am scientifically inaccurate.
    15. Re:Great idea. by zo219 · · Score: 1

      >People wanted a system that was easy to use, and didn't want to have to deal with unlocking all sorts of security measures just to get networking done.

      No, a better analogy would be, the guy who sells wallets designs them so his company can control what goes in and what goes out. You thought it was your wallet? Ha. Get a Mac.

    16. Re:Great idea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Hey, my car keeps running out of gas. Let's get a horse."

      More like: "My teny keeps getting broken into. Let's get a house."

      Rather than: "Hey, if your MS Tent keeps getting broken into, buy MS PadLock for the tent flap!"

    17. Re:Great idea. by Mancat · · Score: 1

      Great idea, except for the part where there isn't really a substitute for su. And no, "run as" doesn't count.

      In what way? It's functional from either an application/shortcut context menu, or from scripts or CLI.

      Also, most Windows apps expect the user to be Administrator, or they either won't run or will run half-assed.

      Most? Ehh, OK. I use Windows day to day, and the only thing I use so far that wants to be admin is the Punkbuster client. Generally, if some program chokes when being run as a limited user, it's because of filesystem permissions. Some poorly written applications don't know how to save data to a user's profile directory, and instead attempt to save it into their installation directory. Make their installation directory writable by the Users group, but remove write permissions for all program and data files.

      I guess that would just be too much work for some, and they'd rather have their systems destroyed by spyware and viruses than take 10 minutes to set up an application to properly run under a limited user account.

      --
      hello dear sirs my name is jamesh i are india (bihar) can u guide me install red had linux 9?
    18. Re:Great idea. by quanticle · · Score: 1

      Or you could just run Linux (FC3, in my case). Then you get proper su, and a much more robust set of permissions to boot.

      --
      We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
    19. Re:Great idea. by Mancat · · Score: 1

      Have you ever seen NTFS ACLs? Standard Unix-style permissions are a joke compared NTFS ACLs, but fortunately Linux has some decent ACL capabilities nowadays.

      I do use Linux, but since Windows works for me, I don't really have a reason to switch over when most of the apps and games I use are Windows-specific.

      --
      hello dear sirs my name is jamesh i are india (bihar) can u guide me install red had linux 9?
    20. Re:Great idea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, my car keeps running out of gas. Let's get a horse.

      more like.

      "zombies ate my neighbor, it wasn't my fault I run windows, so all those people I buried in the back yard came back from the grave and killed them, we could put them at rest, but only if we exorcise my computer, and replace it with our Holy savior's platform of choice, apple."

  10. hmmm! by imothepixie · · Score: 1

    Intel.... soon to be making apple processors? (but not x86!)

    1. Re:hmmm! by MrAnnoyanceToYou · · Score: 5, Funny

      M$ deserts Intel w/ Xbox 360,

      Intel deserts M$ w/ Apple processors.

      Seems fair to me.

    2. Re:hmmm! by compm375 · · Score: 1

      MS deserts Intel and makes money,
      Intel deserts MS and loses money.
      Seems stupid to me. This is of course assuming Intel doesn't start selling processors to Apple within a few months.

    3. Re:hmmm! by g0dzuki · · Score: 1

      You might be on to something there... I've heard the rumor mill slam the porting OSX to x86 argument to death -- but maybe instead of porting to x86, Intel wants to pick up the slack of IBM and come up with a PPC compatible chip of their own -- hmm?

      I'm not a hardware engineer by a longshot and am just talking out my ass, but it was an interesting thought.

    4. Re:hmmm! by imothepixie · · Score: 1

      Yes, people forget intel isn't just x86 and start puffing smoke from their build your own (dream)pipe, more likely something ARM and/with wifi stuff for future iPod maxi's/tabletiBookmini/iWishthingrumorwhatever or looking for more PPC production possibilities.

  11. Re:Linux.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Linux would be better. They get educated, participate in an open source community

    Not everybody who wants a car also wants to learn to be a mechanic. Maybe they just want a car that's reliable transportation out of the box.

  12. Marketing ploy by martin_b1sh0p · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Ah Ha! So Apple may be using Intel chips and now all of the sudden Intel PHBs are recommeding Apple computers. I see a corporate marriage here soon!

    1. Re:Marketing ploy by plj · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Crossed into my mind, too. But I still don't think that Apple would switch to x86. Do people actually see any sense in it, if Intel would also jump into PPC bandwagon and start making those chips? After all, the required documentation is publicly available.

      --
      “Wait for Hurd if you want something real” –Linus
    2. Re:Marketing ploy by vurg · · Score: 1

      I saw the Blue Man Group last night and each one has an iPod.

    3. Re:Marketing ploy by squidsoup · · Score: 1

      and oddly enough, the Microsoft Xbox 360 is PPC based.. has the world gone mad? :)

    4. Re:Marketing ploy by 200_success · · Score: 1

      I got it! Now that Intel has a Microsoft exit strategy, it's making statements like this so that AMD is stuck holding the bag! Brilliant!

  13. "startling confession" - Apple using Intel chips? by guyfromindia · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I dont see this as 'startling'. It is a well know fact that Apple computers are safer than those that run Windows... The fact that Mr.Otellini said that is not 'startling' either. He is probably saying this because there are rumours that Apple may be using Intel chips... http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1819286,00.as p

  14. Knoppix! by tbuckner · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As far as I know, the most secure machine a home user can have right now would be a no-OS computer with a Knoppix disk in the CD drive. Nothing would be stored on the hard drive but user files. Updating software would mean updating Knoppix. That'd work, right?

    1. Re:Knoppix! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And 2 CD_ROMs just to watch a movie on one CD.

    2. Re:Knoppix! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Not needed if you have a swap partition (or huge memory). You can tell Knoppix to load itself into memory; and 700MB of swap space is really really cheap these days (hard drives are under a dollar/gig).

      When you do that, you can eject the CD rom and watchc movies or whatever.

    3. Re:Knoppix! by elhedran · · Score: 1

      Not needed if you have a swap partition (or huge memory). You can tell Knoppix to load itself into memory; and 700MB of swap space is really really cheap these days (hard drives are under a dollar/gig).

      Strangely enough this reminds me of my first computer experience. You load in a floppy to get the os running, take the floppy out and put in the program floppy. The days before Harddrives.

      Seriously, this isn't such a bad idea. cd drives are extremely cheap now, so having an extra cd or even dvd read-only drive isn't really that big a deal compared to the cost of the rest of the machine.

    4. Re:Knoppix! by Premo_Maggot · · Score: 1

      ah yes, back when in school you loaded programs onto your macintosh with the 5inch floppies :] i miss those simple times.

      --
      Good karma sticks to me like velcro on a piece of plexiglass.
      Move along, citizen.
  15. What a maroon! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mr. Otellini is an idiot. Just install one of the many spyware blocking applications that are out there. Most will interactively monitor the system and block things as they are trying to be installed.

  16. Just use common sense. by mind21_98 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It doesn't matter what operating system you have. If people didn't click on random links in spam and download the latest new files without thinking, we'd have far less spyware. I know for a fact I rarely use anti-spyware software on my Windows machine now because I haven't had problems. *shrug*

    1. Re:Just use common sense. by Nutria · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It doesn't matter what operating system you have. If people didn't click on random links in spam and download the latest new files without thinking, we'd have far less spyware.

      That's just wrong.

      "Secure" OSs just won't/can't get viruses & spyware.

      Of course, that's not to say that real OSs are perfect. Worms, rootkits and trojans still must be guarded against, but it's pretty easy for a "desktop user" to do.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    2. Re:Just use common sense. by mind21_98 · · Score: 1

      Right. I'm just saying that the problem wouldn't be nearly as bad if people just used some judgement when downloading files. Plus you can easily run into problems on a Unix system if you always run as root. A system is only as secure as its weakest link (generally the person running it.)

    3. Re:Just use common sense. by Nutria · · Score: 1

      Plus you can easily run into problems on a Unix system if you always run as root.

      Linspire doesn't count as Unix.

      But also, neither Mozilla/FF nor and Unix email app that I know of, does "automatic execution".

      IOW, even if I a running as root, and read a bit of Unix-virus-carrying spam, or click on a spyware-propigating website, nothing bad will happen to my PC, since the apps I use aren't brain damaged like IE & Outlook.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    4. Re:Just use common sense. by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      "Secure" OSs just won't/can't get viruses & spyware.

      Yes, they can if they grant enough user rights.

      The problem with Windows is that the default user has admin rights and no one cares to create & use a regular user account instead. They can, and only use the admin account for special kinds of installs and system maintenance like on other operating systems.

      Hopefully this default will finally change in Longhorn... The computer world would become a better place...

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    5. Re:Just use common sense. by Content-Free · · Score: 1

      I just block most ports in my router for my XP machine (including port 80), and guess what, no malware problems!

    6. Re:Just use common sense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Linspire doesn't count as Unix.

      Why not? :-/
      A unix derivate as any other, as far as I can see.
      Your personal stubborn opinion or what?

      But also, neither Mozilla/FF nor and Unix email app that I know of, does "automatic execution".

      Yes they do, before the security holes are fixed. Same with IE & Outlook. Otherwise IE & Outlook shouldn't do that either. But now we're talking about varying speed of fixing bugs, not software invulnerability.

    7. Re:Just use common sense. by IntergalacticWalrus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Unfortunately asking most non-geek people to "use common sense" does not do much. I have enough trouble explaining my family why an ad that disguises itself as a dialog box is NOT a dialog box and that they should not click them.

    8. Re:Just use common sense. by IntergalacticWalrus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unless you're talking about a fully DRM'd OS (and we don't want that, thank you very much), there is no such thing as an OS secure enough to be immune to viruses & spyware, and if there was it would basically be unusable.

    9. Re:Just use common sense. by oh_the_humanity · · Score: 1

      Must not go to very many websites then since you disabled port 80 traffic. no wonder you dont get spyware , your browser doesnt go anywhere.

      --
      "When they invent bitch slaps that can go through a monitor you better f'ing duck" --deft (253558)
    10. Re:Just use common sense. by drsmithy · · Score: 1, Insightful
      "Secure" OSs just won't/can't get viruses & spyware.

      Where can these "secure" OSes be found ? What software runs on them ?

      Worms, rootkits and trojans still must be guarded against, but it's pretty easy for a "desktop user" to do.

      It's pretty easy for a "desktop user" to avoid malware as well - they just need to avoid "clicking on random links in spam and downloading the latest new files without thinking".

    11. Re:Just use common sense. by Content-Free · · Score: 1

      Precisely. Keeping it off of the Internet is the only preventative measure I know of to keep my Windows box secure. I use other platforms for most Internet functions.

    12. Re:Just use common sense. by SirTalon42 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Linspire doesn't have you running as root, and neither did Lindows.

    13. Re:Just use common sense. by SirTalon42 · · Score: 1

      Then why do you even have it plugged in to your router?

    14. Re:Just use common sense. by Content-Free · · Score: 1

      It's on one of the LAN switches, which connect to the router. I do occasionally allow certain applications/ports on the XP box, mainly not the common ones with common problems.

    15. Re:Just use common sense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Secure" OSs just won't/can't get viruses & spyware.

      By "secure," you obviously mean OS' that are not capable of installing anything. That sounds fun.

    16. Re:Just use common sense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Secure" OSs just won't/can't get viruses & spyware.

      Please explain this one, I'd love to hear how you justify that statement.

  17. Ummmmmmm by 1967mustangman · · Score: 3, Informative

    And he doesn't use any of the wide number of free spyware prevention and automatic removal tools because?

    --
    Madre de Dios! Es El Pollo Diablo! -- Captain Blondebeard
    1. Re:Ummmmmmm by tbuckner · · Score: 1

      That's probably exactly what he's doing; they still take time to work. A full scan takes a few minutes, and one program finds stuff another missed. I did a Spyware Doctor scan on my sister-in-law's Dell. It had, get this, 2,654 infections!!!

    2. Re:Ummmmmmm by ndansmith · · Score: 3, Funny

      Come on, he's a hardware man, not a software guy. He's in there soldering something . . .

    3. Re:Ummmmmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because any of the wide number of free spyware prevention and automatic removal tools don't necessarily work. And who wants to jump through hoops and wait for several different scans to find or remove spy/adware? I can attest that every time I get a call from my family to come and remove another annoying piece of spy/adware, I'm going to spend at least an hour with spybot, adaware, and even MS's spyware removal tool trying to root out the source of the problem. And you know what? Those don't always get said problem. I almost always have to google for removal instructions, spellunk through the registry, and physically delete the offending programs from the hard drive. Does that sound easy or fun?

    4. Re:Ummmmmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Holy fuck you know its bad when idiots respond without even READING THE SECOND SENTENCE IN THE SUBMITION.
      Mr. Otellini had a startling confession: He spends an hour a weekend removing spyware from his daughter's computer.
      WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU THINK HE USES TO REMOVE THE SPYWARE HIS JOHNSON??

      Now turn off the computer and kurt cobain yourself man. If you cannot even be bothered to read the fuckin submition, let alone the article, just do us all a favor and eat the shotgun already.

    5. Re:Ummmmmmm by 1967mustangman · · Score: 1

      Acutally it does. However, even with the most virulant offender I have been able to keep computers spyware free by running a combination of scanners and blocker. The best part is they can be set up to do it automatically. I might spend 10 minutes a week on it, but not an hour.

      --
      Madre de Dios! Es El Pollo Diablo! -- Captain Blondebeard
    6. Re:Ummmmmmm by 1967mustangman · · Score: 1

      How about you read my psot first. The key words I used were blocking and automatic

      --
      Madre de Dios! Es El Pollo Diablo! -- Captain Blondebeard
  18. Ignorance is no excuse. by DerekLyons · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Pressed about security by Mr. Mossberg, Mr. Otellini had a startling confession: He spends an hour a weekend removing spyware from his daughter's computer.
    What he needs isn't a new computer, but a properly configured computer. It's inexcuseable not to have PC with proper firewall, etc...
    1. Re:Ignorance is no excuse. by ShyGuy91284 · · Score: 1

      Or perhaps a properly configured daughter who doesn't download everything that says "free weather reports!", "email screensaver!", or "This site has free stuff!"....

      --
      In undeveloped countries, the consumer controls the market. In capitalist America, the market controls you.
    2. Re:Ignorance is no excuse. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Proper firewall ? You mean the one built into Windows XP ? (garbage) Or something from Norton (worse than the above IMHO) or the firewall in a linksys router ? (garbage as well, actually since I belive they use linux its IPtables (also garbage but running on a very slow processor yahoo!) The point of this diatribe is that if the OS for end user nodes were done properly THEY WOULDNT NEED ANY OF THESE EASILY DEFEATED POORLY THOUGHT OUT "SECURITY" measures. Professionals have difficulty configuring firewalls properly, end users cant be expected to do it, and "wizards" do a really poor job as well. Never mind that with the exception of a few worms (blaster) most of the spyware etc falls into the catergory of trojan horse, end user installs it themselves, so there is nothing preventing the trojan from disabling multiple layers of pointless software firewalls.

    3. Re:Ignorance is no excuse. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Firewall? No need.

      I simply don't install any spyware (or indeed, much of anything) and I don't have much of anything listening on an open port. In other words, there's nothing there for a firewall to block.

      It's even a Win 98 computer. Never been 0wn3d. And yes, I have checked. But I'm the only user and I vet what I install carefully; a luxury others don't get.

    4. Re:Ignorance is no excuse. by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Every weekend? What websites is his daughter visiting that she gets so much spyware it needs to be dealt with every week? Maybe what he needs is to talk to his daughter.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    5. Re:Ignorance is no excuse. by Draconix · · Score: 1

      Um, if you read TFA, you might have noticed that this is recommendations for people who are clueless about a computer. Yes, you can run a reasonably safe Windows PC. The issue is not whether or not it's possible to do so, the issue is whether it's better to leave such a setup in the hands of the non-savvy, or just get them a Mac.

      --
      By reading this you acknowledge that you have read it.
    6. Re:Ignorance is no excuse. by GaryPatterson · · Score: 1

      Blaming the user is no excuse either.

      People are sold these things as easy to use tools that do all sorts of great stuff. It's not their fault that they actually expect the claims to be true.

      The culture of many in the IT industry is that the users must skill up to the computers, when I believe that it should the reverse - computers should allow for inexperienced users. Some learning is required, but security is a complex subject and cannot be learned as a first step. Until users are ready, the 'blame the user' culture forces them to run non-secure boxes.

      Microsoft is a case in point. Previous OS releases were sold as leaps forward in security, incredibly easy to use, etc etc etc. They also relied utterly on the user to secure the box.

      We see the result all around us. Zombie PCs, open ports in every direction and a malignant industry of malware.

      The alternative is to assume the user cannot secure the box themselves, and let them open what they need, when they need it. It's reasonable to assume that users will learn how to open ports when they install something new, or the software installation instructions could specifically step through the process for them.

      The result of the second model is what we see in Linux, Unix and OS X (and lately, thankfully, in WindowsXP). Few (if any) viruses, almost no working malware and users that can trust the security of their machine.

      Blaming the users is a great cop-out for developers, but it's utterly wrong. The developers fail to secure software, never the users.

      If it's not reasonably secure out of the box, it's a failure by the developers.

    7. Re:Ignorance is no excuse. by drsmithy · · Score: 1
      Blaming the user is no excuse either.

      This can only be taken so far. Much like Dell shouldn't be responsible if their computers can't handle being thrown out a 5th story window, Microsoft can't be blamed if users deliberately run questionable software from unknown sources.

  19. That's ridiculous by crottsma · · Score: 0

    I've spent zero hours a week removing spyware from my family's computers for the last six months, even though my siblings spend about half their waking hours on spyware-proliferating sites. Anyone who has to consistently spend more than an hour a month dealing with spyware issues, outside of system administration work, has undermined any claims they have as a computer savant.

  20. Fixing Daughter's Computer by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 0
    Take it away from her until she either learns to practice Safe Computing, or learns how to clean it up herself.

    Or Ghost the drive once and every time she complains it isn't running well, restore the Ghost image. She is responsible for protecting any other data.

    She sounds like one very spoiled child to me - which is completely the fault of her parents!

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    1. Re:Fixing Daughter's Computer by JoeBuck · · Score: 1
      So if a kid runs Windows and gets spyware and viruses, and she needs Dad's help to fix the mess, the kid is a spoiled child? Wow.

      And someone thinks this is "Insightful?" Double Wow.

    2. Re:Fixing Daughter's Computer by DrCode · · Score: 1

      How old is the daughter? Maybe she's 5.

      Maybe this also shows that a Windows box isn't quite as easy to deal with as people claim.

    3. Re:Fixing Daughter's Computer by switcha · · Score: 1
      she sounds like one very spoiled child to me - which is completely the fault of her parents!

      What the hell? What a thinly stretched extrapolation... the article only says:

      He spends an hour a weekend removing spyware from his daughter's computer.

      That's it about her. Where the hell do you get anything about the character of this girl, much less the liscense to critique the guy's parenting style?

      Just another example of the retarded parenting advice regularly spewed out by some of its obviously childless members of /..

      --
      You know what? ... A little club soda *did* get that out!
    4. Re:Fixing Daughter's Computer by MrWim · · Score: 1
      Take it away from her until she either learns to practice Safe Computing, or learns how to clean it up herself.

      and she will be able to learn safe computing without a computer how?

  21. Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You don't have to buy anything, downloading a free copy of Firefox goes a long way.

  22. More like this... by rackhamh · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Pressed about security by Mr. Mossberg, Mr. Otellini had a startling confession: I don't have a clue about security. I can't even keep spyware off my own family's computers. I guess my only hope is to use a platform with such a small user base that nobody bothers to target it. And you can quote me!

    1. Re:More like this... by nagora · · Score: 4, Funny
      Pressed about security rackham had a startling confession: I think it's perfectly reasonable for a 20 year old platform to still be a constant battle for security and that computers should be dangerous for children to use. Gives them moral backbone or something. Also, selling lots of shitty tat means that it's magically transformed into non-shitty non-tat.

      TWW

      --
      "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
    2. Re:More like this... by rackhamh · · Score: 1

      Pressed about security nagora had a startling confession: If a platform has been around for 20 years, that means it should be secure for even the most idiotic user. Airplanes, for example. Anybody should be able to fly them. Same with cars -- if a kid can't drive one, it's shit! Moral backbone, my ass. Can you open this child-proof bottle for me???

    3. Re:More like this... by GROOFY · · Score: 0

      How about: I think it's perfectly fine and all that you can get spyware on your computer simply by visiting certain webpages under default settings - really it's the users responsibility to deal with that.

    4. Re:More like this... by rackhamh · · Score: 1

      You're all completely missing the point of my post.

      a) It was meant to be sarcastic. I don't actually give a shit what OS anybody uses.

      b) Windows has more spyware because it's the dominant OS and therefore the most targeted. Apple would have more spyware if it had more users.

      c) Getting spyware when visiting "certain pages" is like getting mugged when visiting "certain neighborhoods". It would be nice if it hadn't happened, but what the hell were you doing there in the first place???

      Really now...

  23. Two things by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 2, Interesting
    1. Way more respect for Mr. Otellini. I had assumed he got the job due to mob ties.
    2. Hardly the point of his talk, or the article
    Oh, and: "D" sounds like it was hella boring this year.
    --

    There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
  24. huh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, by downloading Mandrake or whatever they're participating in an open source community? I don't think the type of people who can't stop spyware are going to be submitting kernel patches anytime soon...

  25. An Hour? by shakestheclown · · Score: 3, Funny

    An hour a weekend? Jesus, that's one horny little girl...

  26. A Widening Rift? by _damnit_ · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Is this proof of a weakening Wintel alliance? It is very strange to hear such an admission from Otellini. Perhaps he is upset that MS spent so little effort in the past securing PCs that the trend now is away from them [and Intel's bread and butter].

    --


    _damnit_

    It's my job to freeze you. -- Logan's Run
  27. The year is 2005. The name of the place:Babylon-X by Tackhead · · Score: 2, Funny
    > And when further pressed about whether a mainstream computer user in search of immediate safety from security woes ought to buy Apple Computer Inc.'s Macintosh instead of a Wintel PC, he said, "If you want to fix it tomorrow, maybe you should buy something else.""

    Only one commercial operating system has ever survived battle with a Windows botnet fleet. It is behind my firewall. Yours is in front of my firewall. If you want to fix it tomorrow, buy something else.

    - Ambassador d'Ellen, of the Macintosh Federation.

    (Like, it was a really really good Federation.)

  28. Let's play the telephone game! by philovivero · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Reporter: "Do you get viruses?"
    Intel Guy: "Yes, yes."
    Reporter: "If I want to solve the virus problem tomorrow, should I buy Apple?"
    Intel Guy: "If you want to solve it tomorrow, you should buy something else."
    Reporter: "Headline: Intel says to buy Apple!"
    Intel Guy: "Uh. What part of 'buy something else' did you not understand?"

    Slashdot guy: "Why RTFM? Making fun of the summary vs. the headline is more fun."

    1. Re:Let's play the telephone game! by QuantumG · · Score: 2, Funny

      Reporter: "Do you think MacOS is better than Windows?"
      Bill Gates: "Hell no!"

      Headline: Bill Gates Denies Allegation: Apple Makes Superior Product.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    2. Re:Let's play the telephone game! by Shurhaian · · Score: 1

      Not quite.

      He did not say "solve" it tomorrow, he said "fix" it tomorrow.

      What this could easily imply is: "If you get a Mac, you WON'T need to fix it [again] tomorrow." (But if you really want to keep fixing it, get something else.)

      Or the "something else" could refer to "something other than Wintel" - but with the meaning that buying that something else WOULD fix the problem in a day.

      The statement actually winds up being more like neutrality - which is, true, not the glowing endorsement that the /. headline claims it is.

      --
      NB: YMMV. IANAL. Take the above with a grain of salt.
  29. The beatings will continue until moral improves by B747SP · · Score: 0, Redundant
    He spends an hour a weekend removing spyware from his daughter's computer

    If this is an every-weekend thing, he really needs to consider a change of tactics: Spend an hour a weekend beating some sense into his stupid stupid daughter! (and/or himself)

    Even the *really* dumb punters that come to me with computers loaded to the gills with spyware crap don't come back with repeat problems after the first time. Clean the computers, put a couple of blocking whassnames, remove MSIE, MS Lookout Express, MSN Messenger, MS Media Player, replace with Firefox, Thunderbird, GAIM or Miranda IM and Media Player Classic/Real Alternative/Quicktime Alternative. Beat a bit of sense into the punter (not much, just an inkling of a clue is usually enough) and they go away... usually never to be re-infected.

    This isn't rocket science.

    --
    I find your ideas intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
  30. The True Secret of the Intel + Apple Deal by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 0

    Apple is going to use Itantium processors, which will keep them immune from current viruses.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    1. Re:The True Secret of the Intel + Apple Deal by chevyorange · · Score: 1

      The already are immune.

      --
      http://homepage.mac.com/chevyorange
  31. Timed it by crabpeople · · Score: 2, Informative

    "An hour. Seriously? I don't know if I've spent an hour /total/ removing spyware."

    Well i work for a fair sized company i would say that a typical mywebsearch, comet cursor, 180solutions, screensaver inc, etc spyware infection takes about 20 minutes to disinfect.

    for this i would be using
    hijack this
    spybot search and destroy
    and the microsoft anti spyware

    Oh and the most important thing is to do it from SAFE MODE with network. I would recomend installing and running all those tools from safe mode. This includes downloading the updates. The only exception would be the microsoft one since it needs WMI to install which does not work in safemode.

    --
    I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
    1. Re:Timed it by st0rmshad0w · · Score: 1

      Might want to add a complete virus scan (AntiVir, AVG) to that, from a bootable cd, BartPE for example. I can almost guarantee trojans and ADS stuff that Norton/McAfee etc miss.

    2. Re:Timed it by croddy · · Score: 1

      McAfee AVERT Stinger is a great tool to keep on such a CD or thumbdrive.

    3. Re:Timed it by st0rmshad0w · · Score: 1

      Ah yes thumbdrives rock my world.

      The original poster should also point out that you should check each profile on the system or use something like AdAwareSE which handles all users at once. Spysweeper should do the same in the next release.

    4. Re:Timed it by The+Infamous+Grimace · · Score: 1

      I've got one Windows machine, running 2K Pro, and hiding somewhere on it is ISTsvc.exe. Pesky little bugger. Can't seem to get rid of it, but I can keep it contained with:
      AdAware
      Spybot Search and Destroy
      SpywareBlaster
      and
      F-Prot Antivirus, which actually does a good job all by itself.
      I tried the Symantec Istbar removal tool, but to no avail. I might try digging around in the registry again, but last time I did that it didn't work either.

      Any suggestions, anyone?

      (tig)

      --
      Ignorance and prejudice and fear
      Walk hand in hand
    5. Re:Timed it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reformat, reinstall, and stop logging in as Administrator.

    6. Re:Timed it by The+Infamous+Grimace · · Score: 1

      I don't log in as 'Administrator'.

      (tig)

      --
      Ignorance and prejudice and fear
      Walk hand in hand
    7. Re:Timed it by MrAnnoyanceToYou · · Score: 1

      Okay, I have a question. When looking at a Windows box, is there a place I can get a list of the services / processes that SHOULD be running, and a list of those that are spyware? There's a HUGE bunch of junk (as far as I know) chugging along in the background there, and I want to know which pieces are stuff I need and which pieces are stuff I want to eliminate....

  32. YES! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nobody's going to mind waiting ten minutes for their computer to boot.

    LiveCDs is teh footure!

  33. best part is... by mickyflynn · · Score: 1

    no one else will notice.

  34. Why not Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I know why.

    I am a long time Linux user, and happy free software advocate. Been using Linux for years and am completely microsoft-free.

    I've been given free versions (legally) of all the versions of Windows 2000 and Windows XP on several cds with the ability to install it on whatever I want. (Windows CD's, along with AOL cds, make nice coasters.. Well no they don't. but they work in a pinch).

    Linux is difficult to understand. That's all.

    You know for most sound cards, if you want more then one application to make sound at one time you have to configure dmix?

    That's not easy. And is just a example.

    OS X on the other hand is easy. It works and is easier to use then OS X.

    That being said I find for personal use that Linux is much superior.

  35. Colour Me Cynical by milkasing · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Sure a Windows PC's security sucks. ... But with Microsoft turning to Power PC chips for its XBOX and with Apple in talks with Intel, is this just a sign that sign that the Wintel alliance is fraying

  36. Re:Mac sux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice troll. If we judge OSes that way then each one sucks just about the same ... or do you think there aren't a million similar stories for Windows, Linux, and other OSes?

  37. Wow.. by cyberfunk2 · · Score: 1

    Hrm... i'm sure that wont go over so hot with the stock holders. But really, it's not his companies' fault. The CPU just executes code like it should, and their CPUs do a decent job at it (the price/perfomance ratio vs AMD aside).

    Interested that he should say this, especially with Apple/Intel cooperation rumors surfacing recently. Anyone care to speculate ? (we all know the mac rumor sites are going to be jumping up and down on this one)

    1. Re:Wow.. by Inside_Joke · · Score: 1

      more like REsurfacing. This comes around every year or so--Apple's gonna ditch PPC and go to Intel. Every couple years it comes up, and every couple years it's debunked.

      It isn't gonna happen.

      --
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that you're an idiot!
  38. My Experience - Current.... by fudg3tunn3l · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm trying to blast the Spyware and Trojan Horses and Ad Ware off of my cousins computer but the dirty blighters stick to Winblows PC's like a rabid barnacle on the Titanic, reboot and their back!.... to be truly honest I am completely sick of fixing Windows PC's and would gladly install SuSE would my cousin let me. Unfortunately fear and "needing games" stops him...

    --
    Resident of Skara Brae since 1985
    1. Re:My Experience - Current.... by fudg3tunn3l · · Score: 1

      Whilst posting this comment: "Someone from slashdot.org [66.35.250.150], port 42191 wants to connect to port 1026 owned by 'Services and Controller app' on your computer" Why?

      --
      Resident of Skara Brae since 1985
    2. Re:My Experience - Current.... by Tibor+the+Hun · · Score: 1

      One thing that might help you, is to request your cousin to bring the computer to your place, (Since that's where your machine, and your tools are) (And by tools I mean clean broadband connection, CD burner and clean-up software)

      Adding a 2 day waiting period might help as well.

      --
      If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
  39. Why not windows? by elong87 · · Score: 1

    Well for one, I remove spyware as a side job. I have noticed something about the "average" internet user. They would click on popups whether they used windows, linux, or os x. The reason windows is more prone to spyware, is because people who are "digitally inept", choose that microsoft product. Now, if people really move to os x, I am sure there will be the same problems in some shape or form. They will not go away. So, all the folks that are "digitally inept" go ahead and switch to os x...you still won't understand the concept of a CDROM drive.

    1. Re:Why not windows? by XFilesFMDS1013 · · Score: 1

      you still won't understand the concept of a CDROM drive.

      That's the thing that hold the coffee, right?

  40. No, I don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You're purely delusional if you think Linux is as usable as OS X.

    Installing software on OS X: disk image downloads, mounts, copies .app to Desktop. Drag to /Applications if you want.

    Installing software on Linux: ./configure --with-froot-loops --some-other-thing --gravy-boat --use-libs=/usr/someplace/libs/local/libs/local_li bs/glibs/local/some_other_libs...

    Looking for some bullshit...5.6
    *** Configure error: You need some bullshit 5.6.10.2 or greater. You do know what that is and how to get it, don't you???

    1. Re:No, I don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Incorrect. With gentoo, for instance, all you do is "emerge " and it's done. With other flavors of Linux you can use tools like apt-get or yum to easily install applications. You obviously just don't have experience with Linux if you're making arguments like this.

    2. Re:No, I don't by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 1

      While there are certainly some distro's that handle dependancies better than others, gentoo is hardly a "emerge and it's done" kind of thing. It's usually "emerge and wait 6-36 hours, and don't shut down or reboot or anything else while you're doing it and your done."

      Then there's the fact that it's a command line, and someone needs to know the incantation necessary to get what they want. Yup, there's GUI tools as well, but most of them are VERY poorly designed and not very useful.

      Then you better hope you weren't unlucky enough to get a package in the middle of it being updated. Yeah, gentoo makes this less likely by masking packages during the update process, but it can still happen. Boom/bam it's broke and you're left wondering why.

      And speaking of masking, there's no guarantee the package you want is actually unmasked at any given time, which means fidling with more parameters and config files to get them.

      Seriously. If you think gentoo is a usable distro for grandma and grampa, you're smoking something. It's a wonderful distro for an expert, it's horrible for most others.

    3. Re:No, I don't by nukem996 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      On any redhat based system all you have to do is download an RPM, click on it, enter your password, and your done.

    4. Re:No, I don't by kerrbear · · Score: 0

      ./configure --with-froot-loops --some-other-thing

      Oh man, you made my day. I haven't laughed so hard in weeks. Wish I had mod points today.

    5. Re:No, I don't by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "While there are certainly some distro's that handle dependancies better than others, gentoo is hardly a "emerge and it's done" kind of thing. It's usually "emerge and wait 6-36 hours, and don't shut down or reboot or anything else while you're doing it and your done."

      Unless you've got a 386 or older computer...this just isn't so. Any modern computer with decent ram, take very little time to compile most programs. And its not like you can't continue to work while it is compiling in the background. The only real compile time issue is on install if you go the full compile route. Yup..takes a good while to compile X and KDE/Gnome....but, its not like you do that very often.

      Besides...who turns their computers off nowdays? With 'always on' broadband...all of the boxes in my house run 24/7....I'd imagine most other people do the same?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    6. Re:No, I don't by GrassMunk · · Score: 1

      I dont think its about 'who turns their PC off' but more an attitude of 'accidents happen'. So while you might have you Computer plugged into a UPS to make sure it can be shutdown safely, Grandma just plugs her computer into the same socket as her lamp. Then when she turns off the lamp, my goodness, the computer shuts off as well. That is what happens in the real world.

  41. How about... by The+Bungi · · Score: 2, Informative
    And this is just a thought really, but how about not allowing the spyware to get to the computer to begin with? Yeah, there's an idea.

    People who complain about these things are indeed too stupid to use a computer, or simply ignorant, in which case using an operating system that is not so massively targeted will work better for them.

    OS X does not automatically increase people's IQ by a 100 points, despite claims to the contrary.

    Just wait until there's Gator and Super Cursors (or whatever) for OS X. Then we'll see what the difference is between Windows and other operating systems. If the only thing standing between malware and some kid's computer is a dialog asking the root password then I'm really not inclined to feel any safer.

    Security is not a product, it's a state of mind.

    1. Re:How about... by Nutria · · Score: 1

      If the only thing standing between malware and some kid's computer is a dialog asking the root password then I'm really not inclined to feel any safer.

      Unless he/she does not have the root password.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    2. Re:How about... by ruiner13 · · Score: 1
      "If the only thing standing between malware and some kid's computer is a dialog asking the root password then I'm really not inclined to feel any safer."

      Ok, I don't have kids, but if I did, the only way my kid would get my root password is if s/he could tear down a computer to the screws and then reassemble it again working just as before.

      --

      today is spelling optional day.

  42. Pr0n? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe his daughter is surfing too much pr0n?

  43. If Apple by iminplaya · · Score: 1

    was actually thinking of putting Intel chips(ugh!) into their machines, these are just the kind of things I would expect this man to say.

    --
    What?
  44. Ridiculous Analogy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey, my car keeps running out of gas. Let's get a horse.

    When comparing Apples and Windows the correct term would be: Let's get a Bentley.

    Hey, someone keeps breaking in and stealing my wallet. Let's put all of our money under the bed.

    Comparing Apples and Windows the corrct term would be: Let's encase the money in a titanum-lined fire-proof bank vault.

  45. Try working in an all-girls secondary school... by Chordonblue · · Score: 1

    The only thing worse is an all-boys school - then you have hacking to go along with the spyware to deal with.

    --
    "...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
    1. Re:Try working in an all-girls secondary school... by Motherfucking+Shit · · Score: 2, Funny
      Try working in an all-girls secondary school...
      I find your ideas intriguing, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
      --
      "BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
  46. Re:Na ubhe rnpu jrrx?! by LaoTzePhuuk · · Score: 1

    Avpryl qbar...

  47. Re:Linux.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not everybody who wants a car also wants to learn what preventative maintanence is.

    You have to change your oil (or get it changed), get your brakes inspected, check all sorts of stuff. Have you ever seen the preventative maintenence schedule for a new car? Shiiiiat, I sold new Chevys and Toyotas, and they both require a lot of prevention.

    Prevention. Regular maintanence. A computer is no different than any other appliance. Deal with it.

  48. What about Linux? by lux55 · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't it have been in his best interest, being the head of an x86 chip maker and all, to recommend an x86 alternative to Windows instead of a PPC one? Nice of him to give an honest answer at least, just hope he's not in shit for it... ;)

    OTOH, maybe if the rumours about Apple and Intel joining forces are true, then he would have alterior motives for his comment after all. Of course, a Mac sale now is still only helping IBM or Motorola and not Intel just yet.

    1. Re:What about Linux? by ajlitt · · Score: 1

      Gah! Do you people only read the headlines? Otellini never said anything about Apple! Besides, he'd probably wake up with a horse's severed head in his bed if he blamed it on the OS.

    2. Re:What about Linux? by lux55 · · Score: 1

      Please dismount your steed, sir, you're blocking our view. What the article said (including a quote of his words) was this:

      "Pressed about security by Mr. Mossberg, Mr. Otellini had a startling confession: He spends an hour a weekend removing spyware from his daughter's computer. And when further pressed about whether a mainstream computer user in search of immediate safety from security woes ought to buy Apple Computer Inc.'s Macintosh instead of a Wintel PC, he said, 'If you want to fix it tomorrow, maybe you should buy something else.'"

      In other words, if you want a real fix (as opposed to the Longhaul one "coming in 2006/2007") for your spyware and security woes, you should buy something other than Windows/x86. He didn't have to say the name "Apple" because it was in the question.

  49. Three Things To Rule Them All by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you don't want to spend your life providing free tech support for your relatives the best advice is this:

    1. Have them buy Apple computers (hint, OS X is BSD). Whenever they ask, just say "What do you think you should do?" They will say "X." You say "Try it" X works. No more calls!

    2. Rip out any IE or other browsers and replace them with either Firefox or Opera. If Opera, set it up for them once.

    3. Download and make them use spyware and show them what they shouldn't do.

    4. Walk away and enjoy a quiet known only to those who have ditched Wintel ...

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:Three Things To Rule Them All by cr4p · · Score: 0, Redundant

      5. See them complain that the off-the-shelf program they bought won't run on their new Apple computer, since they failed to read the program's requirements that were on the box.

  50. that quote isn't true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i'm friends with paul's son. when i read the story i msg'd him right away to verify. he says its not. and i know this is the kind of unverifiable comment that gets ignored or written off on /. but so beit.

    1. Re:that quote isn't true by FLAGGR · · Score: 1

      Wow, I wasn't sure at first, but now that Anonymous Coward has denied the story I guess theres nothing to do but move along.

  51. Ahh, a spelling zealot's wet dream.... by bennomatic · · Score: 1

    'nuff sed.

    --
    The CB App. What's your 20?
  52. Re:Mac sux by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 1

    Seriously, I tried getting a digital cam working on my friend's mac mini and I couldn't. All the drivers for it that I could find were for Mac OS 9.

    If your friends camera is so old the manufacturer didn't make OS.X drivers for it you will probably have problems finding XP drivers for it as well. Not that it matters I solved that same of crappy OS.X camera drivers/software by buying a $20 memory card reader.

    --
    Only to idiots, are orders laws.
    -- Henning von Tresckow
  53. Linux - it's what's for Servers by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    Apple, it's what's for Desktops.

    A smart person has a Linux server running the firewall with Gigabit internet which a bunch of Apple computers (Macs) connect to.

    Problem solved. Security and geekiness at the back end, and maybe a nice database or two - Cuteness and always works on the front end, safe and secure while Linux does the dirty work.

    Problem solved!

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:Linux - it's what's for Servers by Canberra+Bob · · Score: 1

      An even smarter person runs a BSD server

      *ducks*

    2. Re:Linux - it's what's for Servers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An even smarter person yet runs the Mac OS X variant of BSD on the server

  54. Some People Are Putting Words in Otellini's Mouth by mranchovy · · Score: 1

    He didn't specifically say buy a Mac. He said if you don't want to waste time dealing with viruses buy "something else." That could be a Mac or a PC with Intel Inside (TM) running Linux.

    (Yes, I like my Mac with the dual G4 processors, but let's be honest about what Otellini's saying here)

    --
    I am so smart!
    I am so smart!
    S-M-R-T!
    I mean S-M-A-R-T!
  55. Re:Linux.. by NeoChaosX · · Score: 1

    Yeah, but most of the time, people send them to mechanics to get those problems fixed, because not everybody has the time or ability to become a mechanic themselves.

    Similarly, the expectation in free/open source circles that everybody that uses the software should become a programmer is a tad bit unrealistic.

    --
    One man's selflessness is another man's annoyance.
  56. Re:Less Spyware on Macs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    If market share is the only reason Windows is so susceptible to viruses, then why is MS IIS so susceptible as compared to, say, Apache?

    The reverse analogy *might* be true - that becuase Windows was designed primarily for 'moron end users' (without any real concern for security), is the reason it has a near monopoly share of that market. But computer users are slowly realizing the tradeoff they are making, and many are making new decisions.

  57. daughter's surfing practices by dioscaido · · Score: 1

    Maybe his daughter should stop executing what she downloads from the porn and warez sites she frequents...

    Seriously, I have yet to get a spyware infection. How? My desktop account is a Limited user. Even if I accidentally execute a file, it doesn't have access to modify my system.

    Show me what OS stops the root account from being able to trash their system...

    1. Re:daughter's surfing practices by dioscaido · · Score: 1

      I should say that my mom and little sister are now also limited user on their respective desktops. No problems there (except for the occasional pissy game that insists on saving it's data in program files), and more importantly no spyware.

    2. Re:daughter's surfing practices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Show me what other OS needs a root account to run a normal application :/

    3. Re:daughter's surfing practices by FuturePastNow · · Score: 1

      She probably just visits normal childrens' sites. Apparently they're pretty bad.

      --
      Give a man fire, and you warm him for the night. Set a man on fire, and you warm him for the rest of his life.
    4. Re:daughter's surfing practices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Umm, No.

      Any windows machine can become compromised quite easily via Messenger, Media Player, Outlook, Explorer, and any other program that uses COM/ActiveX/ASP. It's trivial to become admin under windows once a program is running.

      Show me what OS stops the root account from being able to trash their system...
      Try SELinux. Once setup, root can't destroy the system.

      Your one of the lucky ones. Most Windows users are not. You need to read up on Windows internals to see how vunerable you really are.

    5. Re:daughter's surfing practices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mac OS. Even the admin account isn't a root account. Its a pseudo-root account. You have to reauthenticate yourself each time a program tries to modify a system file.

    6. Re:daughter's surfing practices by dioscaido · · Score: 1

      No it is not. Please direct me to one priviledge escalation vulnerability. You do not know what you are talking about.

  58. An hour a week? by melted · · Score: 1

    What's his daughter browsing? Hardcore pr0n and warez sites?

    1. Re:An hour a week? by JawzX · · Score: 1

      No, teenage celebrity "news" and gossip sites. Try it, many porn and warez sites are less loaded down with pop-up adversting and self installing ad- and spy-ware. Really.

  59. Bah, learn to surf by Man+in+Spandex · · Score: 1

    use the right tools and you won't have problems regardless of which o/s you use.

    I agree that Macintosh systems are great simply because right now, theres no threat to it like windows machines but that doesn't really solve much.

    Imagine the following 3 groups of people:
    Group A: Angry PC users going nuts from spyware, viruses, etc.
    Group B: OS-X users
    Group V: Virus, Spyware and bullcrap writers.

    Group A is getting annoyed fixing their pc's just to get up and running like it should.
    Group B notices that the problem is related to viruses, spywares so Group B reccomends Group A to try OS-X out
    Group A says "0mfgbbq OS-X is awesome".
    few years later...
    Group V notices the rise of OS-X and start writing junk for OS-X.

    What will you do in that situation? Basically, instead of teaching the users how to safely navigate the web, you're telling them to ignore the problem using "this" tool. It's as if the spyware/virus/trojan makers are saying "This is our crap, don't like it? change platform, we'll get you another day".

    Money's money. Doesn't grow on trees, yet. When people have problems with their computers, I generally check it out and suggest them to use the right tools if they want no headaches and when they do take the reccomendation, their experience of checking email, IM and navigating the web wouldn't change much if they had OS-X or an easy Linux Distro.

    1. Re:Bah, learn to surf by Trendkill · · Score: 1

      the thing is, it would be much harder to write anything dangerous for mac or linux, mainly because both systems require you to enter a admin password or even confirm it with your own user password to install any kind of software ultimately, linux is the safest due its diversity. try devoloping a sickness for 3000 different types of rabbits, each with their own kind of internal organs. it just couldnt be done.. whereas mac there is more chance, much, much less, as the confirmation via password is still needed, and its a unix based system. at the moment im running tiger on my new g5, and after 6 months of using fedora core 3 on my old machine, i can safely say i dont need to worry about virii as long as that password system is in place.

    2. Re:Bah, learn to surf by cr4p · · Score: 1

      If someone makes a virus that only targets user data, it wouldn't need root privileges to install itself. If you can run programs that are in your home dir and are able to delete or modify files from your home dir, then anything you run in your home dir can wipe off files in your home dir. Chances are, most users only have a backup of their system (the install CDs) and have either no backup of their data or have backups that aren't updated often enough.

  60. Re:Less Spyware on Macs by rainman_bc · · Score: 1

    I'd duck for cover on that argument. Many will debate about users running as Administrator on Windows where they don't run as root on Mac.

    Truth is, you're right. Look at FF. It's gaining momentum. For some reason now I get FF popups. And I see more exploits for FF now.

    Let's face it, as popularity increases, so is the incentive to exploit, despite the fanboys who argue otherwise.

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  61. Impending Apple Viruses by winterbc · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It seems to me that this comment of "fixing it tomorrow" is indicative of a future when booting a Mac could be as dangerous as a WinTel out of the box. Increased popularity of the Mac platform will give increased cachet to those who can manipulate that undeveloped area to their advantage. It will be a challenge for Apple to continue its "virus-free" status in the coming years, especially if the Intel rumor ever proves to be true.

    --
    - I forgive myself for creating chaos.
  62. Oh Reginald.... I DISAGREE!!! by Deitheres · · Score: 0

    Pardon the obligatory Family Guy reference in the subject line ;-)

    Let me just say though, it's not that difficult to mess up a machine running Mac OS X. All it takes is a (l)user who *thinks* s/he knows what the hell s/he's doing... starts deleting stuff from the System folder because "I needed more space on my hard drive!"

    --
    Just like driving a car:
    (D) to go forward
    (R) to go backward

    1. Re:Oh Reginald.... I DISAGREE!!! by supabeast! · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's why OS X gives those files to the root account, and will only delete them if the user has administrative access and provides a password to do it.

    2. Re:Oh Reginald.... I DISAGREE!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So many files... look at all those files. You can't delete all those files, you ridiculous man.

    3. Re:Oh Reginald.... I DISAGREE!!! by rokzy · · Score: 0, Troll

      who modded this Informative?

      PLEASE don't mod things as correct when you have no actual experience but think it sounds about right.

    4. Re:Oh Reginald.... I DISAGREE!!! by spectre_240sx · · Score: 1

      You forgot to mention the magic ability to actually run and function correctly with a limited user account. Try that on windows and you'll have an aneurism within an hour.

    5. Re:Oh Reginald.... I DISAGREE!!! by Kadin2048 · · Score: 3, Informative
      You can only do this if you have an Administrator password.


      This isn't exactly like having root access, but it's pretty close. It allows you to sudo -s and become root whenever you want, but remain a regular user the rest of the time.


      If you go into the System folder and start deleting (or moving, renaming, whatever) things, you're immediately required to authenticate and become root in order to do it. No password, no deleting.


      Although I'm not too familiar, I imagine that someone with root/administrator access on a Windows box can similarly screw things up with a few well-chosen deletions. Let's face it: any modern computer has to store critical files somewhere on the drive, and any decent operating system is going to have a way to let superusers modify them. If you let idiot users become root or Administrators, they're going to screw things up.


      Stupidity is platform-independent, I'm afraid.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    6. Re:Oh Reginald.... I DISAGREE!!! by drsmithy · · Score: 1
      Try that on windows and you'll have an aneurism within an hour.

      Been doing it for nearly 10 years. No heart problems yet.

    7. Re:Oh Reginald.... I DISAGREE!!! by iowannaski · · Score: 1

      An aneurysm is not a heart problem, FYI. I need to verify I'm not a script to post? WTF. IS there infoon this somewhere?

      --
      i forget
    8. Re:Oh Reginald.... I DISAGREE!!! by 64nDh1 · · Score: 1

      A more valid point would be, should a person have administrative access (with the superuser password) then even experienced users have made mistakes rendering the system unusable.

      Most US and European users would think they could do without Japanese and Korean fonts for example. I'm not even sure that you need a password to remove them with Font Book. However, to do that OS X will, on next boot, cease to function - or so I read on an OS X support site before.

      However, if a person has navigated to /Volumes/$(DRIVE NAME) instead of their home or other folders, and has the password, and knows how to issue a #sudo rmdir /Volumes/Macintosh\ HD/System# instruction in Terminal then they want to ruin the OS X system. Has such an instance ever been documented?

      I presume similar system problems could be achieved by deleting important files in /Library/. Particularly in /Library/Application\ Support. Anyway, most people will find a lot of files masked in Finder by a period prefix (.DS_STORE and so on, but hardly anything that important in this case) so Move to Trash isn't an option. And rebooting OS X tends, for me, to retrieve random files from the Trash inexplicably.

    9. Re:Oh Reginald.... I DISAGREE!!! by fakedupe · · Score: 1

      Perhaps a brian problem?

      Aren't aneurysms typically in the brain. I guess there are are aortic aneurysms too.

      Ah, nevermind.

    10. Re:Oh Reginald.... I DISAGREE!!! by William+Fold · · Score: 1

      I'm running as normal user on XP without administrative privledges and all seems to be fine.

      I use "Run As" whenever I need to install something which is a little annoying, but no more than on my Linux box when I want to install something as root.

    11. Re:Oh Reginald.... I DISAGREE!!! by arminw · · Score: 1

      ...to remove them with Font Book...

      Actually, you don't REMOVE them, but just disable them. They are still there, but no longer show up in your programs. I have indeed disabled a lot of fonts this way and have never had any trouble. The system runs a bit faster now.

      --
      All theory is gray
    12. Re:Oh Reginald.... I DISAGREE!!! by quarkscat · · Score: 1

      I completely agree that Max OS X can be secure,
      but it does take some initial effort -- effort that
      the Apple retailer may not be willing to make.

      My parents found that their 3rd MS WebTV was hosed
      within 5 years. They have already experienced
      the hidden MSFT tax before -- that they would have
      to buy not only a new console but also a new keyboard &
      mouse and compatible inkjet printer, they asked
      for my advice.

      Some of our relatives have Wintel computers, which
      start out being cheap until you add in the anti-virus
      software, the anti-spyware software, and the firewall
      software required before going on-line, not to
      mention the time needed each week for OS and
      virus/spyware signature updates nor the time
      spent cleaning crud off the computer that got
      through anyway.

      After describing the sort of Apple computer they
      might need, I snail-mailed them a list of items
      that the retailer needed to do before the sale.
      Details like having a separate administrator and
      user account on the computer, and having the latest
      OS X security patches installed were included.
      Instead, the Apple Store sold them a computer
      that was returned and still had the previous
      owner's files and applications installed, refused
      to set up a separate administrator account, and
      convinced them to purchase 3rd party anti-virus,
      anti-spyware, and firewall software.

      Apparently, either the store sales staff were a
      bunch of greedy asshats, or else improperly
      (Apple) trained ex-Wintel clowns, or both.

      No matter whose hardware platform or OS is the
      starting point for a computer newbie getting
      on the internet, one cannot presume inherent
      security out-of-the-box. Proper configuration
      is always an issue -- the Mac OS X platform just
      makes the security process easier, initially and
      subsequently.

    13. Re:Oh Reginald.... I DISAGREE!!! by Pollardito · · Score: 1

      Apparently, either the store sales staff were a
      bunch of greedy asshats, or else improperly
      (Apple) trained ex-Wintel clowns, or both.

      if you bought it at CompUSA, it's because they're greedy asshats. sales commissions (and really poor item price marking) have made that store very customer unfriendly

    14. Re:Oh Reginald.... I DISAGREE!!! by quarkscat · · Score: 1

      Would that that was the case, but it was an Apple Store
      (Orlando, FL) and not a CompUSA.

      When I get the chance to spend some time down there,
      I will rebuilt my parents' iBook harddisk from
      "bare iron". Of course, I also expect to get roped
      into some hands-on training.

      BTW, they love NeoOffice/J (and cannot understand
      why anyone would buy the Mac MS Office product).

    15. Re:Oh Reginald.... I DISAGREE!!! by 64nDh1 · · Score: 1

      I have more than 5,000 fonts. I tend to remove them. If I'm getting rid of them it's because they are crap. When you have that many fonts, you don't end up with much quality control. But the point was - you can remove system fonts, leading to instability. Oh, and if you use Font Agent Pro fonts that are disabled or deactivated can auto activate and they do show up in programs.

  63. Well, that's an inference, ain't it? by hey! · · Score: 1

    When asked whether somebody should buy an Apple rather than a Wintel machine, he simply said "maybe they should buy something else".

    People are just reading a deliciously ironic inference into what he said. Logically, his advice could be followed by buying anything from an Acorn to a zSeries.

    I assume he just means that Windows is not a good choice for somebody who doesn't have a high tech CEO they can call on for sysadmin maid work.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  64. Mod Parent up. by MrAnnoyanceToYou · · Score: 1

    Neat. Thanks. I'm replying to bookmark this somewhere I can find it later. You kick ass.

  65. Mossberg Hounded Otellini by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I am posting as an AC because I'm in the industry and as a manufacturer I've dealt with Mr. Mossberg serveral times. Reading the actual article I can easily tell what actually transpired. Mossberg can be very abrasive and sometimes downright mean. He has his preconceived notion and there's no telling him any different. He will hammer at you rapid fire and throw you off balance and then come in with a zinger question. In this case he was laying an ambush for Otellini. Note that *Mossberg* is the one who said Apple (he has a pro-Mac bias). Otellini just said maybe you should install "something else". I'll bet that Otellini was thinking Linux.

    Also, Mossberg got Otellini playing "hypotheticals" a big no-no in the PR game ("what *IF* you had to solve this tomorrow"). I can also easily imagine how Otellini brought up the example of his daughter in passing after Walt brought up his own horror stories. Swapping such stories is a way of getting in sync with someone in a conversation. Did Otellini actually mean *every* weekend? Or maybe just once? He might have misspoken in an off-hand remark he viewed as an aside anyway. This is why the Pentagon now audio tapes every interview between key staffers and journalists. Too many times, the intent is improperly (and likely intentionally) misrepresented.

    People wonder why big-time execs resort to vague replies in interviews. Well, a few more run-ins with sneaky journalists who are gunning for him and Otellini will probably get vague too.

    --- Momentarily Anonymous

  66. The solution today, not tomorrow by Sodki · · Score: 1

    Mozilla Firefox!

  67. Re:Linux.. by st0rmshad0w · · Score: 1

    "Prevention. Regular maintanence. A computer is no different than any other appliance. Deal with it."

    Is it now? I have never had to do any regular maintenance on any appliance I have ever owned, nor have they ever needed it. The simply work.

    Either a PC isn't an appliance or it is a poorly made one. There is no real excuse for people having to deal with spyware issues. Even if the OS is flawed, why don't the PC makers do something to make the situation easier to manage?

  68. 3 blue guys out, 4 horsemen in. by Markintosh · · Score: 2, Funny

    Clearly time to replace the Blue Man Group with... The Four Horsemen.

  69. Cost-effective by overshoot · · Score: 1
    I've got to be missing something here. Intel works its rank-and-file in a way that would make an old galley-slaver blush, but at least the management works even harder.

    Paul Otellini isn't hurting even slightly for money, but he's seriously short of time with his family. So he spends one of the few hours he gets a week with his daughter playing with her computer instead of with her? What, he doesn't know how to find competent tech support people?

    If I held any Intel stock, I'd be dumping it with news like this of the head dude's decision-making.

    --
    Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
  70. Re:"startling confession" - Apple using Intel chip by diamondsw · · Score: 2

    There have been rumors of Apple using Intel chips for 15 YEARS now.

    --
    I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
  71. Nice conclusion by Red+Herring · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I have a hard time getting from:

    Q: If I don't like spyware should I use an Apple?
    A: You should use something else

    to

    "Intel Head Recommends Apple!"

    Seems that "something else" includes Linux, BSD, Be, and many other things that actually runs on an x86... since Otellini is unlikely to actually upset Microsoft by saying "Microsoft is bad!", "Something else" is probably the strongest rejection of Microsoft (though not necessarily endoresement of Apple) that he could get away with in print...

    --
    #include "standard_disclaimer.h"
  72. nothing stored on the hard disk but user files by DrWhizBang · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Because the user files can't be that important, right?

    Really, It's all about the user files. If noone cared about their user files, then security would not be an issue. We could just wipe our computer's clean everynight. But it's not so - backups are a huge pita, so we do everything we can to avoid reloading the os.

    Sure knoppix solves some of this by making the OS read only, and forcing the user to keep their files on a separate filesystem. But there are still a few problems with this.

    First of all, the system is made up of processes in memory. There is nothing to stop an attacker from having the user download a malicious app to their own filesystem and running it from there, or even terminating or replacing system processes. Nothing aside from unix security - score one more for knoppix vs. windows, I guess.

    More importantly, the user's data is still on a read-write media. As I already mentioned, this is really the important stuff. If someone can find a hole in Firefox that can delete your home directory, you won't really care that the system is still safe, will you?

    And finally, the if the user wants to install software that is not on the CD, they are out of luck. That is unless they can install it into their home directory. Review problem 1 for why this counteract the benefit of a read-only system disk.

    If booting off of a CD makes knoppix more secure, then RiscOS must be even more secure, since it boots from ROM. It probably is, but not for that reason - more likely because it's not a target. Knoppix is certainly more convenient to secure because of the reason you mentioned, but is not really any more secure than a hard-disk based linux like fedora.

    --
    Schrodinger's cat is either dead or really pissed off...
    1. Re:nothing stored on the hard disk but user files by elhedran · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Personally I think it applies more to the people who use it as a websurfing, email checking tool, rather than as part of their job.

      Their data is email's and photos. Hardly stuff targeted by black hats. However by making the software readonly they are now protected from spyware just by rebooting their machine, protected from being a spam zombie just by rebooting their machine, and if they get lost, they know rebooting their machine will take them to a known state.

      Basically this isn't good for anyone who wants to do real work on a PC, but for those who want it as simple as their microwave then this is a potential solution. Their PC becomes a safe, although much more limited appliance, rather than a powerful workstation.

      Of course you can also do this by signing applications and making decisions about how to trust in Redmond rather than the home office. A bit hard to push through the PC, but I reckon they have a shot with the X-Box 360. Afterall, console 'software' already has to be ok'd by the manufacturer.

    2. Re:nothing stored on the hard disk but user files by Stephen+Williams · · Score: 1

      There is nothing to stop an attacker from having the user download a malicious app to their own filesystem and running it from there

      Actually, that is preventable: mount /home with the "noexec" option. Doesn't protect against scripts passed to other executables (e.g. malicious Javascript exploiting a Firefox hole), though.

      -Stephen

  73. Re:Less Spyware on Macs by Zarkonnen · · Score: 1

    Note that my position on this mainly comes from having been a Mac user for all my life, and having programmed for Mac for several years. I can think of any number of ways of introducing malware into a mac system even if the user is not running as root.
    Operating systems having an innate resistance to spyware is rather hard, since there's no way of immediately noticing whether a program is doing any spying in addition to its normal operations.
    Hence, no, I'm not intending this as a provocation. I'm writing this on my very own TiBook!

  74. Re:Mac sux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Windows sux.
    I tried to get a scanner working on my XP machine but couldn't.
    All the drivers for it that I could find were for Win95.

  75. How was he recomending OSX? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Am I the only one who didn't find, "If you want to fix it tomorrow, maybe you should buy something else." to mean that he was recomending OSX?

  76. Re:Linux.. by Wildfire+Darkstar · · Score: 1

    That's a bit of a straw man, though. No one ever suggested that "everybody that uses the software should become a programmer." I'm a long-time, happy user of various flavors of Linux (mostly Gentoo and Debian), but I'm certainly no programmer.

    Similarly, if I owned a car, while I might not be able to realign the tires (or whatever), I would at least take the time to know how to throw on a spare, should the need arise, or to know to take the thing in to have the oil changed regularly.

    It's the same thing with computers, no matter what operating system: you don't need to be a specialist to be a responsible user, and no one seriously suggests otherwise.

    --
    Sean Daugherty "I have walked in Eternity -- and Eternity weeps."
  77. No, correct by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let me see... You give the user the choice between:

    1) Downloading a .dmg image that gets automounted, copying the Application to the applications folder, entering a password. Presto the Application is ready to use.
    2) Weeding his/her way throught this before he/she can update/install their Applications. ...and you really think that the average user will have trouble choosing? I like LINUX as much as the next guy and I use both LINUX and OS.X alot but let me tell you that LINUX isn't ready for Joe/Jane user by a long shot. In the ease-of-use department OS.X is still lightyears ahead.

    --
    Only to idiots, are orders laws.
    -- Henning von Tresckow
    1. Re:No, correct by noamsml · · Score: 2, Informative

      nonsense.

      on simpler linux OSes, such as ubuntu, debian and mandrake, you can either donwnload the package and install it (though ubuntu doen't yet feature a graphical fronted for this method), or you can just find them in your respiratory, without manually downloading anything or weeding your way through anything (though again, on ubuntu you'd probably have to know how to enable universe, but that's a 1-time easy job).

      so while for some times macs can install more easily, the difference isn't as drastic as you make it seem.

    2. Re:No, correct by concept10 · · Score: 1

      You insensitive clod! The average new Linux user would probably not use Gentoo. Hell, I've been using Linux since 1999 and I don't have the paitence for it myself. What about this command: yum install apt-get install Presto the Application is ready to use.

    3. Re:No, correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who said that GNU/Linux is suppost to be easy?

    4. Re:No, correct by LibrePensador · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I am so sick of hearing this trite. Linux changes every six months. If you have not used it in the last year, you have no clue about the huge gains in usability that have been made.

      I wouldn't use anything else unless I was really forced to do so.

      You obviously have not used a recent distribution. Install Kubuntu/Ubuntu or Suse 9.3 and then talk.

      And there is plenty of things to like about Apple, but there's plenty to dislike such as their proprietary hardware/software combination, the fact that all the useful software that I like on Linux doesn't have a free software equivalent on OS X. Everything from small utilities to usenet news clients becomes yet another expense. And upgrading to the latest and greatest is not just the cost of a DVD or CD, it is quite expensive.

      But hell, if the choice is between OS X and Windows XP, I guess, pick your poison.

      I am having a blast with Kubuntu.

      --
      Pragmatism as an ideology is not particularly pragmatic in the long term. Keep it in mind when you dismiss Free Software
    5. Re:No, correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3) iPod is UNIX

    6. Re:No, correct by Bazzalisk · · Score: 1

      Since when do you need to weed your way through the entire emerge manpage in order to install software? My (pretty much non-technical) girlfriend managed to pick up the idea of: emerge -s keyword to search for what she wants and emerge -p name to see what it would install, then emerge name to install it. What's more she can easily cope with: emerge -uDN world to update all the packages on the system. Simple - no weeding through a (very easy to understand) manpage required.

      --
      James P. Barrett
    7. Re:No, correct by iamacat · · Score: 1, Troll

      Free Linux software runs just fine OSX. However, if you want more quality than people are willing to provide as a hobby, you are stuck without any solution on Linux. Maybe there is a commercial office suite, but good luck with news readers, utilities, tax prep, education software...

      I expect this situation to persist until Linux guarantees long-term binary compatibility for libc, /dev, /proc, C++ ABI, kernel modules and filesystem structure. OSX Tiger broke some kernel extensions (Cisco VPN) for the first time in many years and people are not happy. With Linux it's more like once a month.

    8. Re:No, correct by Kirby-meister · · Score: 1
      You talk about the huge gains in usability (in "linux" no less...which is a kernel...now if we're talking usability in a specific distro or window manager, that's a different matter), but you provide no evidence in your post. How is this informative?

      It isn't just the simplicity of dragging an icon into the apps folder that makes software installation easy on OS X. "Usability" includes the assumptions and past experiences of the user. Because users have dragged icons from one place to another, it makes OS X's system of installation simple; it builds on their previous experience.

      The problem with much of Linux distro/window manager usability is you're not building on their previous experience (in the context of installation of software) of double-clicking on a binary to run its install script or dragging an icon - they're forced to use a commandline interface for a package manager or compile something or some other nonsense they care not to learn.

    9. Re:No, correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most stuff works fine on a modern Linux distro. Installing still doesn't.

      Even if a lot of packages can be installed without too much pain and suffering, you'll eventually come up against something that suffers from dependency hell.

      There is no comparison with the Mac (or Windows for that matter).

    10. Re:No, correct by Aldric · · Score: 1
      Try picking a sensible distro as your example. Something like SuSE or Fedora.

      Most users don't download and install applications anyway. Hell, Microsoft can't even persuade their customers to do updates.

    11. Re:No, correct by poofyhairguy82 · · Score: 1
      The problem with much of Linux distro/window manager usability is you're not building on their previous experience (in the context of installation of software) of double-clicking on a binary to run its install script or dragging an icon

      Old habbits aren't always the best. There is a lot of clicking next in Windowsland that doesn't need to happen.


      - they're forced to use a commandline interface for a package manager or compile something or some other nonsense they care not to learn.

      BS.You can use great GUI tools to install, and use great internet tools to avoid installing.Both ways seem far better to me than "next, next,next,next,next,next,next,etc."

    12. Re:No, correct by Slack3r78 · · Score: 1
      (though ubuntu doen't yet feature a graphical fronted for this method)


      Ubuntu uses .debs for prebuilt packages not in the repositories, and while I'm not in front of my Ubuntu box at this moment to check, I'm fairly sure Synaptic will handle those just fine.
    13. Re:No, correct by LatePaul · · Score: 2, Insightful
      And there is plenty of things to like about Apple, but there's plenty to dislike such as their proprietary hardware/software combination, the fact that all the useful software that I like on Linux doesn't have a free software equivalent on OS X. Everything from small utilities to usenet news clients becomes yet another expense.

      Sounds like you've never heard of Fink or Darwin Ports. Which is ironic given that you were berating the GP for not knowing about Linux useability features.

    14. Re:No, correct by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1
      That's a rather loaded example: you picked the best case scenario from MacOS X and the worst case scenario from Linux (portage).

      Let's see. On MacOS X you sometimes also need to install software by running installers, some using the Apple installer framework and others using, eg, Wise. If you want access to the world of free (as in beer) software you get with Linux you may also need fink.

      On Linux you can use something like Synaptic in Ubuntu, or even better when it's available an autopackage. this is even more straightforward than the .dmg: just click the link in the web browser (1), click "Continue" at the "You are about to install" screen (2), click "Close" in the summary window at the end (3). The app is now in your menus and ready to use.

      You could even argue this - when it exists - is easier than the Mac, because it's a very common newbie mistake for people to open up the self-mounting DMGs and run the program directly from there. If they like it they then drag it directly into the dock - which is, let's face it, what intuitively makes sense - and then can't figure out why clicking the dock icon pops up a Finder window. Nor can they figure out why the icon stops working once they clean up their desktop a bit.

      Now it's true that on MacOS X it's still a lot easier to graphically install software most of the time as long as you understand the (undocumented) conventions because it has a head start on easy packaging. But hopefully as autopackage gathers momentum more and more software will be available in this form. Already programs like Gaim and Abiword are. So while there's a lot of work left one of the last bastions of UNIX geekery is slowly starting to fall.

    15. Re:No, correct by PierceLabs · · Score: 1

      SuSe is indeed a sensible distro. Its the only Linux distro that I could stand (considering Fedora is still a 'work in progress'). However even with SuSE you have to deal with the application discrepancy advantage that OSX has. Sure you CAN find applications for Linux that can do many things - and some of them are opensource or even free, but you have to look for them. You have to know WHERE to look for them. Then you need to make sure the damn thing will install on your distro.

    16. Re:No, correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You guys really ARE smoking something good. What grandpa or grandma even KNOWS about Ubuntu, Debian and Mandrake, or which is easy to use?

    17. Re:No, correct by Kirby-meister · · Score: 1
      But the thing is the most popular window managers are the ones that build upon those previous "bad habits" of Windows users. Gnome and KDE are, either by accident or by design, made to be somewhat familiar in look and feel and behavior as the Win/Mac WMs.

      The biggest hurdle to switching, however, is the arrogance of GNU/Linux users. Too many people like yourself are quick to call their past experiences with using a computer (the procedures they've grown comfortable with, such as clicking "next,next,next" to install) "bad habits." You have to take into account procedures they're comfortable with if you're going to want them to switch.

      Either that or provide some new procedure that is soooo good that they switch because of it; I've yet to see that on a popular GNU/Linux WM.

    18. Re:No, correct by poofyhairguy82 · · Score: 1
      Too many people like yourself are quick to call their past experiences with using a computer (the procedures they've grown comfortable with, such as clicking "next,next,next" to install) "bad habits."

      Calling dog poo a rose doesn't make it sink less...Klik and apt-get are better than anything in Windowsland.

    19. Re:No, correct by Kirby-meister · · Score: 1

      And it's that arrogance towards doing things the way people are comfortable doing them that is making the switch from Windows to GNU/Linux for many people too challenging.

    20. Re:No, correct by poofyhairguy82 · · Score: 1
      And it's that arrogance towards doing things the way people are comfortable doing them that is making the switch from Windows to GNU/Linux for many people too challenging.

      You are correct. Very much so. Not being more like Internet Explorer/Office/Windows is hindering the adoption of Firefox/OpenOffice/Linux. Thing about it is (aka the essential truth of open source projects) is that it doesn't need to win any popularity contests to thrive. A few devoted fans/companies/benefactors are better than many people who are not committed more than their own use. The devoted will do things how they see best, user's experience be damned. I used to think differently, but after a long time of trying to be a "save the world from itself" open source zealot I have learned the truth. OSS projects will not bend to the will of the public, it will be the other way around. Eventually the price of open source projects (and harsher laws that prevent software piracy) will make them popular despite the majority of users previous experiences. Sorry if I come off as arrogant, it's what I believe to be true from being on both sides of the coin.

  78. Re:Intel head is idiot by TwistedSpring · · Score: 1

    I should probably just say that I'm sure Macs have some Intel chips in there somewhere, and that I understand that this remark may have been strategic. I recognise that Intel are trying to distance themselves from the whole "Wintel" thing. The new CEO could have simply been emphasising the fact that Intel is not tied to Microsoft and is trying to grab a bigger piece of the Apple pie.

  79. Re:Linux.. by psavo · · Score: 1

    I have never had to do any regular maintenance on any appliance I have ever owned, nor have they ever needed it. The simply work.

    • Used 'headcleaner' cassette in VCR?
    • (Re)Tuned channels in TV?
    • Set the clock on VCR/TV after power outage?
    • Changed batteries in any autonomous appliance?
    • Synced PDA to computer?
    • Cleaned the grease out of oven?
    • Washed the keyboard?
    • Replaced shell of phone?
    • Removed crumbs from a toaster?
    • Melt ice from freezer?
    • Changed any lightbulbs?

    That's all 'maintenance' and have-to-learn things.

    --
    fucktard is a tenderhearted description
  80. Forget the Intel/Mac comment in the article.. by kevcol · · Score: 2, Interesting

    More entertaining is Scott McNealy's section

    Sun's decision to make peace with Microsoft Corp. more than a year ago gave Mr. McNealy's company some $2 billion in cash...

    *snip*

    Mr. McNealy compared Sun's agreement with Microsoft to a pair of boxers who shake hands by tapping gloves and "promise not to bite each other's ears off." But he got in at least a nip, telling the audience that while Sun does run Windows to ensure interoperability, employees who aren't in engineering aren't allowed "to connect Windows to our network for security and viruses reasons. ... For another $2.4 billion maybe I won't say that."

    1. Re:Forget the Intel/Mac comment in the article.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sun often drops the hint that they use 30,000+ Sun Ray terminals for their employees, some even in their homes. It's like having an X Terminal over a VPN...but better.

    2. Re:Forget the Intel/Mac comment in the article.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Too bad McNealy's lying through his famous pearly whites. I work at Sun, and there are thousands of Windows machines used by non-engineering people. Certain Microsoft applications are banned, but Windows is not. It's just discouraged.

      Macs are discouraged, too. But I've never seen a Mac spewing virus-laden email on the Sun internal network.

    3. Re:Forget the Intel/Mac comment in the article.. by kevcol · · Score: 1

      Well, he certainly gives a good interview at any rate.

  81. Re:Linux.. by Trendkill · · Score: 1

    then use a mac, its easier than windows.

  82. Does that really work? by Paradox · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I understand that OS X is due for at least some Spyware. I'm sure it's gonna happen.

    But... this argument that OS X is a smaller market and therefore avoids attention has some flaws. We have viruses for cellphones and viruses for obscure routers.

    You'd think that by now we'd have some of this stuff for OSX. Also, by definition most mac users have more money to throw around thatn PC users (costs more). You'd think that people with a higher income would be like a juicy arm that the mosquito-like asses who write virii and spyware would swoop to.

    There has to be some other X factor that's sheltered them this long. I suspect that it's much harder to get your spyware onto the machine. Apple bundles about 90% of what everyone wants, and the other 10% is well-established stuff. Also, Apple makes it easy to make lots of things. For example, screensavers that pan across pictures (a major source of spyware in the windows world, free screensaver!) are easy to customize and make on OS X.

    --
    Slashdot. It's Not For Common Sense
    1. Re:Does that really work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The X factor (hah) is sudo(8). No Mac user runs as root, ever.

      Stupid NT just can't get away from this whole ein user, ein desktop, ein session crap. (And don't start: RUNAS.EXE is useless.)

      One would think that Microsoft, having extolled NT's fine-grained ACL protection as "bettar tan teh yuu-niks", would take advantage of said "technology" and run each application in its own user space. But no. Why not? Windows apologists, please answer ASAP (probably never).

  83. Re: Better anology. by vertinox · · Score: 1

    Hey, someone keeps breaking in and stealing my wallet. Let's put all of our money under the bed.

    I think with OS X the anology would rather be:

    Let's put our money in a safe in a basement behind a locked door that actually says "Are you sure you want to open this door?" when I try to open it. I try again and somehow rename the door.

    Sorry inside mac humor, but in seriousness the friggin OS is secure a greate deal more than windows. Everytime I want to install something or let something install even though I am logged in as admin it says "are you sure you want to run this?" and if requires system changes it asks me for my password.

    Obviously social engineering can defeat this, but you aren't going to surf to a web page and magically find that a gazillion programs installed themselves and you have to hunt down each file in the registry and nuke the dlls and those damn random file names and curse anyways because IE died for the sixtieth time and your tpc/ip stack is now hosed so you have to go to a working computer and hunt down dll files on the net which is nothing but forum messages of people asking for the same file with no reply... *huff* *puff* And to think I fixed the issues all without formatting and got IE to work again (shortly installing firefox on these persons computers).

    To make a long story short, the day I find spy ware on any OS X machine (not even my own), I will agree with you that this temporarily avoids the problem. Until then...

    No.

    --
    "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
    -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
  84. Dumb Intel head! by IntergalacticWalrus · · Score: 2, Funny

    You had to wait until AFTER Apple switches to Intel chips to say that!

  85. Re:Intel head is idiot by aleander · · Score: 1
    Just as if everyone switches to Linux, spyware for Linux will appear. Imagine spyware that silently compiles itself into your kernel. Imagine what a pain in the ass removing Spyware from Linux would be.

    Probably only a slight one. Linux's security model makes it unusual for an app to request admin privileges, thus decreasing the probability of executable compromise. Of course worms _would_ be a problem, but spyware per se would be rare - user must _install_ the spyware, usually by accident, and that's less probable.

    and they have a single, standard automatic patching system in the form of Windows Update

    Which is archaic, underfeatured, browser-reliant, slow, centralized, ugly and ms-centered. I cannot upgrade firefox, photoshop or whatever by means of Windows Update.

    I use Slackware Linux on my servers

    Wow! On servers? Production? Err... ok, now I understand.

    --
    Segmentation fault. Ore dumped.
  86. What on god's green earth are you smoking? by IdahoEv · · Score: 1

    If, suddenly, 50 or 60 security flaws are detected in various Apple products I'm sure that patches would be developed quickly, but will they be deployed as quickly as Microsoft currently deploys them? Would the users install them? No!

    Um, I've been doing daily updates of my computer since OS X was released five years ago. When security flaws have surfaced, I've found them to be patched within 48 hours and available immediately. A pop-up tells me they're there, I click and auth, and I'm done. I can install them while working on other stuff and don't usually even have to reboot. OS X auto-update has been around forever and Apple is extremely good about updating quickly.

    Back when that feature was first available on Macs, Windows 2000 was the state of the Microsoft are: it required you to manually visit a website, and reboot after each individual patch. Thousands of Win2k boxen are STILL not up to date.

    On top of it, many windows security patches take weeks to months to emerge when an exploit is published. Some aren't released as patches, instead are rolled into the next Service Pack, whenever the hell that gets out. And then ... other vulnerabilities don't get fixed even then. SP2 left, what, half a dozen known IE vulnerabilities unpatched?

    I'm comfortable running an OS X box -even one running 10.1 or 10.2 - on the internet with no external firewall, if necessary, knowing that any security flaws will be fixed rapidly. I couldn't do that with any of my windows boxes, even the most modern XP SP2 machines, without breaking down in terror over what might happen to my data.

    --
    I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.
    1. Re:What on god's green earth are you smoking? by TwistedSpring · · Score: 1

      I did mention that I'd be interested if OS X had an automatic update system. I'm glad to be informed that it does and that it works so well.

      Since you read Slashdot you're probably more security conscious than most of the Mac users I've spoken to. Most of them got very huffy about my department's requirement that a Mac version of McAfee VirusScan be installed on their Macs, and they demanded to know why this was required because they were adamant that Macs don't get viruses. What with all the fuss about Windows and security, it's hard to imagine a Windows user in that position (although I admit that there are undoubtedly many of them).

      However quickly exploits are fixed, my point still stands: As Mac usage rises, more and more security flaws are likely to be found. Microsoft has been in the difficult position of not being able to keep up, of not being immediately able to patch some of the more tricky security flaws in a way that does not affect user experience (see Windows XP SP2). They made mistakes in their shell from the outset and have paid the price: figuring out how to correct those deep faults without adversely affecting user experience has been a slow process. You may say it's weeks before patches are released for Windows, but they come out much faster now. I think it would be unwise for Microsoft to not fix security flaws as soon as they possibly can, but they need to be sure that such hefty fixes do not break anything else. After all, they have a huge customer base to support and if they screw up with a patch it's a massive problem.

      Will Apple also get into this position as usage increases? They're in a much better position than Microsoft right now -- they can learn from Microsoft's mistakes. I reject the suggestion that OS X represents the be-all and end-all of software security, and I deem that view to be dangerously complacent.

      I hope to be entering the world of Macintosh soon (I clearly have much to learn), I've used them once or twice and they seem to be great machines that hark back to the Amiga days for me. I reserve the right to not start licking the screen, though :)

    2. Re:What on god's green earth are you smoking? by Thnikkaman · · Score: 1

      But you'll forfeit that right soon after getting your first Mac. :)

  87. New daughter by GQuon · · Score: 1
    Your sentence finished itself in my head before my eyes reached the end of it, it was expanded like this:
    Pressed about security by Mr. Mossberg, Mr. Otellini had a startling confession: He spends an hour a weekend removing spyware from his daughter's computer.
    What he needs isn't a new computer, but a new daughter. :-)
    --
    Irene KHAAAAAAN!
  88. The beatings will continue until moral improves by B747SP · · Score: 1
    He spends an hour a weekend removing spyware from his daughter's computer

    If this is an every-weekend thing, he really needs to consider a change of tactics: Spend an hour a weekend beating some sense into his stupid stupid daughter! (and/or himself)

    Even the *really* dumb punters that come to me with computers loaded to the gills with spyware crap don't come back with repeat problems after the first time. Clean the computers, put a couple of blocking whassnames, remove MSIE, MS Lookout Express, MSN Messenger, MS Media Player, replace with Firefox, Thunderbird, GAIM or Miranda IM and Media Player Classic/Real Alternative/Quicktime Alternative. Beat a bit of sense into the punter (not much, just an inkling of a clue is usually enough) and they go away... usually never to be re-infected.

    This isn't rocket science.

    --
    I find your ideas intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
  89. Steve Jobs by General_Tso · · Score: 1

    There were times when Jobs used PC machines, too. Shows these two guys don't buy into their own marketing just as IT people should not.

  90. Re:Linux.. by st0rmshad0w · · Score: 1


    Given than I consider maintenance something you do to make certain something keeps working:

    Used 'headcleaner' cassette in VCR?

    Rarely, but I'll give you that one, also cassette player cleaner

    (Re)Tuned channels in TV?

    You mean pushing a few buttons on the remote to auto-tune? This is more like initial setup than maintenance.

    Set the clock on VCR/TV after power outage?

    Again, initial setup, not really maintenance (they won't stop working if I don't care what time the clock says)

    Changed batteries in any autonomous appliance?

    I'll give you that, but most of mine are cordless rechargables, and I have a dog to herd the truly autonomous ones.

    Synced PDA to computer?

    Isn't that normal use, and usually automated?

    Cleaned the grease out of oven?

    Self-cleaning.

    Washed the keyboard?

    The PC keyboard? I don't compute covered in mud.

    Replaced shell of phone?

    I don't even know what that means, I've had the same phone for ages and it just works.

    Removed crumbs from a toaster?

    Conceded, but the tray makes that trivial (toaster oven), this is also more in the area of "cleaning"

    Melt ice from freezer?

    Auto defrosting.

    Changed any lightbulbs?

    Lightbulbs are appliances? That would be equipment replacement, not really maintenance.

  91. Re:Intel head is idiot by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 1
    I would like to hear some OS X users opinions on this post. Is there a standard security update tool in OS X? sure: OS X simply IS more secure. It's not completely impenetrable, but in order to install almost ANYTHING of significance (like a program) on the hard drive, you have to type your name and password. A lot of knuckleheads wanking about on pr0n sites would likely (if not cheerfully) install mal/spyware on a Mac if it meant they had "special" access to electronic images of naked people. Idiots are Idiots, and you can't completely protect them, but once they learn that if they visit a site and the Security Dialogue Box suddenly pops up asking for name and password, they should probably click "cancel" and go somewhere else.

    Thanks to VB and COM and all that crap running behind everything in Windows, all that mal/spyware crap just slides down the pipe with great invisibility.

    If Macs became more popular, they might have a problem with viruses, but I am not certain where the pathology vector lies with that - even when Apple was a really significant part of market vack in the late 80s and early 90s there were comparatively few viruses for the platform. That might change if it went back up to 20%, but I'm not certain, given the present infection process, that 20% would be enough to permit enough propagation to create a pathological growth curve.

    Oh, and Yes: OS X has REGULAR security updates, that are sometimes fairly frequent.

    best,

    RS

    --
    Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
  92. Re:Intel head is idiot by Rob_Bryerton · · Score: 2

    I would like to hear some OS X users opinions on this post.

    You sure about that? I'll just say that yes, OS X has Software Update, which pulls & applies patches from Apple.

    But with all due respect, I can't take the time to rebut your post as there are just too many BS "points" and "facts" in there. Here's one of my faves:

    The thing morons like this Intel guy don't realise is that Windows only gets viruses and spyware because virus and spyware writers get the most reach by targeting the OS that runs on 90% of desktop computers.

    So, the *only* reason it "gets" viruses is because it's popular? With respect sir, you're simply out of touch with reality. Time's up...

  93. Re:Intel head is idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm an OS X user. I have been for the past couple of years, and from what I've seen, Apple is very good at getting patches out. most of the time, any news stories about the patches usually involve the phrase "WOULD exploit...".

    I'd like to present a different opinion on virus writing (or lack thereof) on OS X. everyone says that there the reason windows has so much more viruses is because there's a bigger audience, and more room for fame. put yourself in the shoes of a virus coder...do you want to make the 97,000th windows virus...or the FIRST OS X virus? it seems to me /. applauds the firsts of the world, and how great would it be to say you wrote the first virus for a platform? a platform applauded for its security, no less. i'd even bet that the first virus' maker gets a job offer from apple.

    just me $.02, i'd love to hear what /. says.

  94. Maybe MS will spend their money on fighting malwar by asscroft · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The real threat to MS is clearly malware/spyware/adware. the fact that everyone in my family who isn't a CS major has a ton of popup shit all over their computer, IE toolbars called seach assist and search buddy and bonzai search assist buddy and other such bullshit. The fact that Christmas is known as the "ad-aware, spybot S&D, Hijack This, Firefox, Thunderbird lecture circuit" time of year. The fact that people who have bought a mac are pleasantly using their computers while the rest of us are fixing, securing, patching, repairing, disinfecting and updating ours. All of these are what's killing windows. Not just nix, not just "free software" not just apple.

    If MS could sick their policy people on making it fucking illegal to be a company that profits from secretly installing shit on people's computers then maybe they wouldn't have me and so many others saying " my next PC will be a mac, no question".

    because it's true, my next pc will be a mac, no question.

    The fact that the RIAA can get a 12 year old locked up for downloading 3 megs of a nelly song, and yet cool web search is legally allowed to fuck up every computer on the internet is sickening. And if MS wants to stay in business they have two choices.
    1) hire cool web search programmers to infect the OSX
    2) take a page out of the RIAA book and purchase some congressscritters and make this spyware/malware shit illegal as fuck. then find and prosecute the perps.

    Something has to be done, even if that something means buying a mac (and enjoying computing once again).

    --
    because I have been enjoined by this Holy Office to abandon the false opinion which maintains that the Sun is the centre
  95. Strange by Famanoran · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This laptop is Windows 2000.

    I don't run a personal firewall.

    I don't run an anti-virus system.

    But I just did a spyware and virus scan (for the first time since I set this machine up, like 6 months ago) and I had ... 0 virus, 0 spyware infections.

    My secret?

    I use Firefox.
    I have sane policies for NOT clicking on everything.
    Not running things sent to me in email.

    Gee, can't be that difficult...

    1. Re:Strange by wootest · · Score: 1

      Taking precautions isn't hard in principle. The hard thing is that when asked about security, the majority of computer users reach for their dictionaries - they don't know what's dangerous and what's not, which precautions to take and how to take them. Most people just don't have a clue whatsoever, and it's easy for the relatively few of us who do to act smug about it.

  96. No, more like this... by Draconix · · Score: 1

    Heh. This has been gone over many, many, many times, and it's utter bullshit. Think of how much legal software gets ported to OS X. It's not the whole pie, but it's quite a lot. Why do people port it? Because there's a market there. Now, think really hard about that. Why would all of the virus and spyware writers pass up another opportunity to do their business? I'll give you a hint: It's not because OS X is a smaller market share. Maybe, just maybe, it's because it's exceedingly difficult to successfully create and implement viruses and spyware for OS X. I'll grant you, if OS X had the market share that Windows does, there would be some viruses and spyware, as being the dominant platform encourages people to write them. However, if Windows were in the same market share as OS X is currently, and it still posessed the vulnerabilities it has, it would still be rife with viruses and spyware.

    --
    By reading this you acknowledge that you have read it.
    1. Re:No, more like this... by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Worms and drive-by spyware installs are one thing. But a lot of spyware relies on social engineering to get itself installed (run this to get your free br1tney spears screen saver!), and there isn't anything that can be done about that. The last couple major email viruses worked the same way - they relied on people running the attachment rather than exploiting some hole in a Microsoft program. It just seems that so far, non-Windows OSes just haven't been tempting enough targets.

  97. Article is wrong, good job Slashdot by Edmund+Blackadder · · Score: 1

    The head of Intel DID NOT recommend apple. He merely said "you should buy something else". "Something else" certainly includes all flavors of Linux and BSD which may be based on Intel processors.

    Slashdot editors should be more careful about the text of the articles they approve.

    1. Re:Article is wrong, good job Slashdot by Rob_Bryerton · · Score: 1

      Slashdot editors should be more careful about the text of the articles they approve.

      You must be new here. Seriously though, I had the same reaction when I RTFS. I'm thinking, "wait a minute, the guy said no such thing..."

  98. Re:"startling confession" - Apple using Intel chip by RootsLINUX · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The "startling" part about it is that here we have a CEO who stated something that does nothing to help his business (on the contrary it actually hurts it) and it is the truth . Good lord, this is something to write home about folks! Mr. Gates and Mr. Balmer, are you taking notes?

    Joking aside, I say more power to you Otellini. In the business world, truth is in a very short supply and it's good to see a business man who won't resort to lying, deceit, and FUD to try and boost his company's sales. *salutes*

    --
    Hero of Allacrost, a FOSS RPG for *NIX/*BSD/OS X/Win
  99. Ahem: I'll take this one... by casefive · · Score: 2, Informative
    For your question on OS X security updates: There is a standard security update tool in OS X. It can be set to run automatically as well as run manually; It grabs the current security patches from apple, usually requires a reboot. For third party software, there are apt-ish tools like fink and darwinports so you can make sure you're running the best ssh possible, but that's more for your varsity level guys. The built-in updater handles OS updates, as well as other Apple (tm) software like iTunes or Safari.

    For your "if Apple had a Windows-sized market share it would have Windows-sized problems" comment: I will respond with -
    standard_reply_1 -- Apache blah blah Windows blah blah, larger marketshare DOES NOT IMPLY more problems. Configuring a system intelligently does a lot to prevent many problems from ever becoming an issue. For more details I refer you to every 8th post in this thread, as well as every 20th post on /. in general.
    ...as well as:
    standard_reply_2 -- The Mac OS is configured to prevent a user from being able to install malware. It is configured to prevent connections from the big bad internet. It has a firewall in place and configured out of the box. You have to enter a root password to install anything. It is not perfect, but by being set up correctly at the outset they have guaranteed that in your marketshare reversal scenario, the Mac users would as a whole, be in better shape than the current crop of Windows folken. By default, your average Mac internet user is already non-privileged and firewalled. That's what we're trying to get Windows users to please please please start doing!

    Now a higher marketshare does imply that more effort would be spent on finding Mac exploits, and I fully grant that in turn would create more problems than we have now. But I feel you overstated your case. There is a lot of terrain between "worse than Macs now" and "as bad as Windows now."

    And for your distinction between the kernels of NT/OSX/*nix vs. the end user environment: You're doing a little bit of a strawman there. Windows does not allow for you to pull out many of the "extras" and so making a claim that Windows without a browser would be as secure as OSX without a browser is a bit disingenuous. A large part of the security problems plaguing Windows rely on the ability of (eg.) your browser to touch things that a browser ought never to touch.

    You made a very good point, however, that Mac users check for updates with less frequency and less urgency than Windows now requires. And as market share increases, yeah, Mac users will have to adapt somewhat. While ease of the updates is a bonus for Macs, the timeline of bugfixes and the average mean time to clicking "software update" both need to mature as Mac OSX takes over your city, county, state, country, world, mwa-hah, hah-ha, hah. Ha ha.

    Sorry, almost got out of control there.

  100. Re:Linux.. by jericho4.0 · · Score: 1

    Yeah, but I'm guessing you know a lot more about computers than you do about cars.

    --
    "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
  101. Intel, maybe. X86, no way. by TheLittleJetson · · Score: 1

    If Intel has some PPC-ish chip it's a possibility. I seriously doubt Apple would ever make the switch to X86, as it would make it a lot easier for people to run OS X on generic hardware, which would take a major incentive away from buying Apple hardware. Having users who own your hardware gives you a much better grip on the market than users using your software. Look at SEGA when they had the Genesis, versus now.

  102. Re:Intel head is idiot by MajroMax · · Score: 3, Funny

    Your post involves a

    ( ) technical (x) social ( ) moral

    comment about computer security. This comment is incorrect. Here's why it's incorrect:

    ( ) You have no idea how system security works
    (x) You assume that popularity is inversely proportional to security
    ( ) You make improper use of technical language
    (x) You assume that part of the problem is the entire problem
    (x) You fail to account for different security models.

    Specifically, your comment fails to consider that:

    ( ) Security flaws can be exploited in an automated manner
    (x) Not all bugs are security flaws
    ( ) Security flaws can be exploited manually
    ( ) Legions of script kiddies use point-and-drool tools
    ( ) Dedicated black-hats can cause damage using home-designed tools
    (x) Privilege separation prevents many problems
    ( ) Some security flaws are strictly theoretical
    (x) Different systems are inherently more or less vulnerable to exploits
    ( ) Security flaws can be independently discovered
    ( ) Security flaw discovery and exploit does not require source code
    (x) Not all security flaws are of the same severity
    (x) Running as root is almost always a problem, no matter the system
    ( ) Not all viruses are transmitted by e-mail
    ( ) Not all viruses are self-propagating
    ( ) Not all security flaws are buffer overruns
    ( ) Stupid people do stupid things

    and the following general objections may also apply:

    ( ) Full disclosure completely informs affected system administrators
    ( ) Exploit code has legitimate uses
    (x) Security is by design, not accident
    ( ) Security isn't magic, and thinking of it that way is harmful
    ( ) Hackers/crackers aren't evil magicians who can get around anything
    ( ) Security starts with the user
    ( ) Why should we trust the government?
    ( ) Why should we trust you?

    Furthermore, this is what I think about you:

    (x) Nice idea, but it's been said before and that doesn't make it any more true.
    ( ) That's an incredibly stupid idea, and you're stupid for suggesting it.
    ( ) You're a moron, and I'm surprised you have enough brain cells to continue breathing.

    --
    "Evil company X is threatening to restrict our rights! Let's all get together to stop--OOOH! SHINEY!!!" -- AC
  103. Re:Less Spyware on Macs by morgajel · · Score: 1

    the good news is there's a fix for the popups- the bad news is it's annoying we have to do it.

    When you find a page like that, click on the Adblock button in the bottom right corner and locate the .swf file in the list. highlight it and click ok.

    if you're feeling clever, put some *'s in there to block all swf's from that server.

    what's happening is people are using the pop-up feature in flash and put a little invisible flash bug on websites.

    bloody annoying.

    by blocking those flash files, you'll eventually get no popups like that... might take a week- it's like tuning a spam filter.

    --
    Looking for Book Reviews? Check out Literary Escapism.
  104. big mistake for intel by moosesocks · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This points a huge flaw in intel's business plan.

    they are directly and inextricibly tied to a single entity -- microsoft. The vast majority of intel's business depends entirely upon Microsoft.

    This is a big no-no in the business world, especially since Intel has very little control over microsoft -- Microsoft could theorietically begin to endorse IBM's PowerPC, orchestrate an (illegal) deal with Dell and HP, and silently make the switch by bundling a version of Windows that runs on PPC, but maintains full backward compatibility with x86.

    As it currently stands, intel has no freedom. Their fate is doomed to be the same as Microsoft unless they somehow diversify. Granted, as time has shown us by SGI and Sun, diversification is not always a good thing, but for a company the size of intel, having all of its eggs in one basket surely cannot be a good thing. AMD has proved this, as much of its business lies outisde of desktop processors -- it's embedded device and flash memory segments do very well. Granted, intel also produces other products, but has definitely endorsed a policy of the consolidation of their products.

    Diversification has worked beautifully for companies like IBM and GE. 10 years ago, I do not think that IBM would have been able to dump its PC business without significantly damaging themselves.

    On a similar beat, it is interesting to note diversification in other fields. From an operational standpoint, General Motors is not a car company (that divison loses money). It is a bank. Their financial arm (GMAC) produces far more revenue than the car-making portion. If we invented cheap, effective teleportation, thus eliminating the need for automobiles, GM wouldn't be hurt too badly.

    --
    -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    1. Re:big mistake for intel by megalomang · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That is incredibly difficult to believe for many reasons. Let me count the ways....

      1) 99% of today's software runs on x86. Nobody wants to dump all of their software and migrate to a new ISA. Why else would CPU manufacturers continue to support legacy x86 even at the cost of up to 10% of their area and power budget just to decode x86 CISC instructions to RISC u-ops
      2) There is an enormous business infrastructure built around this. It would all but KILL microsoft's reputation in the business world
      3) The vast majority of Microsoft's revenue is on x86 software. It would be suicide for them to "theoretically begin to endorse" a new PC architecture that a) does not have the capacity and credibility to supply the world with enough PCs (ever wondered why Dell doesn't source from AMD???), b) does not have enough software to satisfy the demand, c) doesn't even have an owner stepping up to the plate (didn't IBM just sell off its PC business to Lenovo), d) can't provide the lowest prices
      4) Nature abhores a vacuum. Any number of software vendors would love to get a crack at the x86 market that Microsoft vacated. Again, this would be suicide for Microsoft.
      5) Intel has plenty of internal software, drivers, development tools, etc, not to mention an absolutely enormous amount of open-source win32 software and linux software
      6) Every consumer service provider and hardware vendor in the world supports WIN32 on x86. Microsoft would be starting a platform from scratch that nobody would buy because the market does not sell anything for it: a) IO devices, b) broadband/VoIP/VPN, c) all the software and games they are used to
      7) Even IBM would be a fool to think they could survive without x86 platforms to install their software and services onto
      8) Not to mention that what you are saying is far from original -- the market has been saying for YEARS and YEARS that Intel is doomed due to a narrow focus. And yet just last quarter, Intel reported record revenue and profit. Their stock is taking off as investors expect great future growth. More than ever before, even more than during the dot.com hayday. The continue to beat down AMD to lower market share. They have pommelled TMTA and Via into oblivion. Please tell me how lack of diversity has been hurting them. Their margins are still in the 60% range, they went through the entire dot-bomb without posting a single quarterly loss (unlike ANY other large tech company I can think of), they are the first to 30cm wafer production, first to 65nm geometry in volume
      9) And they do diversify. They have revolutionized the laptop platform, all but taken over the high-performance (i.e. high-margin) PDA and portable computing marketplace. They are a market leader in NOR flash (again beating out AMD to the point where they must sell their flash devision, not the same definition of "do very well" you must be thinking of). http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20 050302net_a.htm
      http://news.com.com/AMD+expects+flash+memory+to+hu rt+revenue/2100-1006_3-5521587.html
      They are pushing WiMAX to the market as a viable competitor to both cellular technology and cable/dsl broadband, and they are the first to bring wimax silicon to the market http://www.intel.com/ca/pressroom/2005/0418.htm They have a single-chip cellular GPRS baseband and high-performance application processor for entering the phone/PDA market. http://www.intel.com/design/pca/prodbref/252336.ht m
      10) Time and time again, Intel has proven its marketing and execution genious, bringing to market products that are not necessarily the most academically superior, but certainly

      AMD made a great presentation for WinHEC ex

    2. Re:big mistake for intel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> Ah well, but what do I know....

      You work for Intel I take it?

    3. Re:big mistake for intel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope... it's all public info. But I definitely follow the industry closely.

    4. Re:big mistake for intel by drew · · Score: 2, Informative

      funny, if i remember correctly, something like 3/4ths of the chips intel manufactures are not x86 processors. intel is no more dependent on microsoft than microsoft is on intel.

      --
      If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
    5. Re:big mistake for intel by akuma(x86) · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is a silly argument.

      What possible motivation is there for Microsoft to move to a different ISA? Almost all of the world's software is written for x86. Moving to a different ISA would seriously weaken Microsoft's monopoly position because all of the tools and infrastructure (drivers, compilers, debuggers etc...) are build around x86. Microsoft would commit financial suicide if this happened not only because the ISVs would be pissed, but for another reason - There simply isn't enough capacity to supply NON-x86 silicon to meet global demand (computers would start costing $5000 again - not a good thing for Microsoft).

      Intel supplies 80% of the worlds microprocessors. Nobody else has the fab capacity to do this. It takes a few years to put up a fab and each one costs about 3 billion dollars (which keep getting even more expensive for each process generation). IBM/AMD/others simply don't have the capital structure to build all the fabs necessary to meet global demand. Who is going to put up the capital? Microsoft? Why? The already enjoy monopoly pricing. How would moving to a different ISA give them any kind of a return on investment given the costs?

      Building microprocessors is so expensive that DEC-Alpha, HP-PA RISC and SGI-MIPS have all thrown in the towel yeilding to Intel. SPARC will be the next to go. If Apple goes with Intel, expect POWER to be the next to die (sorry but console profits are tiny).

      Here's my prediction. In 10 years, everything will run on x86. Yes, even PDAs and cell phones. The risk to Intel is that more competitors start building x86 processors (AMD is too small). Maybe Samsung or some other company with the capital requirements and semiconductor expertise necessary to build out fabs.

      In fact, I think that Microsoft is more at risk.

      They are at risk on the desktop/laptop side from Apple and Linux. Both of which run x86 (Admittedly, the Apple thing is still a rumor).

      Let's say the market moves away from the PC to a more server/thin-client model. Microsoft gets cut out of the picture (think Google already running their software services on x86-Linux and upstarts like RIMM/Blackberry running their software on the clients). Google runs on Intel. RIMM does not, but Intel is already a leader in the handheld space (think ARM).

      Now let's consider the diversification argument by listing the markets that require computing power.

      PCs/Desktops? No question here. Intel has a dominant market share in both processors and chipsets.

      Graphics? Intel is #1 in graphics marketshare with their integrated graphics solution.

      How about notebooks? Intel is the clear leader in that rapidly growing space. Transmeta tried to compete and got crushed. AMD is all but invisible with their one-trick opteron pony. The market is moving here and Intel is there to capitalize.

      PDAs? Intel inside with StrongARM.

      Cell phones? Intel inside (with their flash chips).

      Servers? Intel is again very big here with over a 90% share of x86 servers.

      Embedded? No Intel there. The reason? There's no money there...

      Consoles? No Intel there. There's very little money to be made with silicon. All of the value is in the software. NVIDIA only made about 30 million on XBOX (Intel made something similar). ATI is reported to make about 2$ per console on XBOX360. To put it into perspective, Intel makes about 600 million every single week.

      Diversification has worked beautifully for companies like IBM and GE. 10 years ago, I do not think that IBM would have been able to dump its PC business without significantly damaging themselves.

      IBM is valued less than Intel by about 30%. GE has been around for 100 years, Intel is only 30.

      In the 80s Intel was concentrated on making memory chips but were getting killed by the Japanese, and in a heartbeat, diversified into microprocessors. Until the demand for microprocessors diminishes, Intel will keep making them. It's hard to stop when you still have 60% gross margins. If there's value and growth in silicon, Intel is well positioned to take advantage with their enormous fab capacity and their army of skilled engineers.

    6. Re:big mistake for intel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This points a huge flaw in intel's business plan.

      they are directly and inextricibly tied to a single entity -- microsoft.


      First of all, you're wrong. Second of all, you're wrong. In fact, you're just plain old wrong.

    7. Re:big mistake for intel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You work for Intel I take it?
      And let me guess... You work for Apple?

    8. Re:big mistake for intel by megalomang · · Score: 1

      Here's my prediction. In 10 years, everything will run on x86. Yes, even PDAs and cell phones. The risk to Intel is that more competitors start building x86 processors (AMD is too small). Maybe Samsung or some other company with the capital requirements and semiconductor expertise necessary to build out fabs.

      Good observation... Samsung could completely swallow up AMD, TMTA, Via Centaur, etc., and with them all their IP, patents, and other cross-licensing leverage, giving them an easy entry into the ludicrous world of x86. Combine this with the Korea's very "favorable" business conditions toward Samsung, Samsung's insane ability to down-pressure costs, complete silicon-to-product vertical solutions, existing memory and flash business, and they would be a force to reckon with.

    9. Re:big mistake for intel by ooze · · Score: 1

      Ah...I'd love all companies to turn into banks...and then find the technichal means for controlled energy/matter conversion. Once we have Star Trek replicators and beaming all markets and all business is gone...yay! No more ads! No more exploitation! No more annoying business people! No more need to earn money. Us slashdotters still wouldn't get laid under any circumstances...but hey, we have holodecks then.

      --
      Just because I can imagine doing a hippopotamus, doesn't mean I'd like to do it.
    10. Re:big mistake for intel by narsiman · · Score: 1

      Yall know that microsoft is building its dotnet platform with an MSIL (intermediate language) that is completely portable with a JIT in the middle - right.

      Doesnt take that company too long to build a JIT for Power or CELL. They too have plans to get rid of this x86 reliance.

  105. My daughters use it just fine by leonbrooks · · Score: 1

    Kopete looks way different from MSN Messenger but does the same job and without the dangerous crap that random idiots broadcast to you through it. The rest of the interface (web browser, email, office suite, games running under KDE) the 15yo just uses and couldn't care less what brand it was. She has said that KMail is easier for her to use than MS Outlook, but I don't think that's part of a pattern or anything.

    The 4yo just wants to play the Polly Pockets online games, which she does in FireFox.

    My enthusiastic 5.5yo son and fine collection of local nephews (3yo to 10yo) have no trouble either. We have Mac-only users and Wintendo-only users drop in all the time, and they have no problems.

    There is no Windows here, only Linux. Sorry, but it's just the truth.

    When was the last time you actually used a modern Linux GUI?

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  106. Re:Intel head is idiot by TwistedSpring · · Score: 1
    but spyware per se would be rare - user must _install_ the spyware, usually by accident, and that's less probable.
    Really? Usually spyware installs itself as quietly as possible alongside other applications (ok, you may get a tiny note buried in the EULA but other than that it's practically trojan). I see no reason why the makers of spyware for Linux wouldn't try every trick in the book to get itself installed without the user noticing. Linux users can have accidents too :). I also see no reason why new Linux users won't run everything as root, or won't just be so used to the "This program requires root privileges" dialog box that they simply hammer in the root password automatically for everything that demands it.
    Which is archaic, underfeatured, browser-reliant, slow, centralized, ugly and ms-centered. I cannot upgrade firefox, photoshop or whatever by means of Windows Update.
    True. There are licencing issues with updating other vendors software, but these could certainly be overcome. Currently many applications (including Fx) rely on internal auto-update systems, but at least Microsoft makes some attempt to update all their software with one service. Take Firefox and Thunderbird: although they're both produced by Mozilla, they each have an independent update system which only runs when the application is running. Linux could demonstrate an update service that allows every software group to release patches and updates over the same system, but it'd be difficult to implement in an environment where users can compile the software themselves, and put it in nonstandard locations. In those eventualities, the system would simply have to notify the user to go and download updates.
    Wow! On servers? Production? Err... ok, now I understand.
    I'll take this as mockery of Slackware. It was chosen it because it was the distro that was bundled with the least irrelevant shit and was the most suitable for my needs. Damn Small Linux was another option, but that's a little too slimline :) Each to their own I guess.
  107. Re:"startling confession" - Apple using Intel chip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In the business world, truth is in a very short supply and it's good to see a business man who won't resort to lying, deceit, and FUD to try and boost his company's sales.

    Uh, hate to burst your bubble, but Otellini is a big fat liar just like all the rest. Your basing this glowing opinion of him on one quote, which isn't even conclusive. He just said "Maybe some people should buy Apple."

    Also, you're a fool to think it hurts Intel's business. Intel makes most of it's money selling to OEMs in huge quantities. Quarter-to-quarter fluctuations are larger than any potential dent Apple could make in the PC market in the short term. By the time you buy that Dell, Intel has already made it's profit -- they don't care if it sits on the shelf. That's Dell's problem.

  108. Re:Less Spyware on Macs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look at that! A comment that doesn't drool over apple and is a valid point. Modded to -1.

    Seriously. He's right. Say what you like about IIS/Apache, but you have to attribute at least /some/ of Windows security problems to popularity.

  109. the trouble with knoppix hdinstalls by petermgreen · · Score: 1

    is they are a pita to update.

    there is no security archive for them and upgrading everything from the debian testing and unstable upstream respositries on an install as big as knoppix is a pain in the arse.

    i guess you could upgrade individual packages for security issues from the main debian testing/unstable archives but this would still be quite a bit of work keeping track of security issues.

    imo best bet right now is to do a clean install of sarge edit the sources.list so it stays on sarge when sarge goes stable and set up a script for automatic security updates.

    --
    note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    1. Re:the trouble with knoppix hdinstalls by ozmanjusri · · Score: 1

      there is no security archive for them and upgrading everything from the debian testing and unstable upstream respositries on an install as big as knoppix is a pain in the arse.

      Not really again. I haven't needed to do this yet, (I normally just use Synaptic myself) but with the right sources.list, making a button which runs 'apt-get clean && apt-get autoclean; apt-get update && apt-get upgrade' should do the trick.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
  110. IW4M by leonbrooks · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The four different desktop machines (well, 3 dt and one laptop) in this household all run Mandrake Linux. Sound worked on all of them OOTB. Only this desktop has a special sound card (Yamaha 744), the rest are Intel or PC'97. Everything shares sound nicely through artsd.

    Occasionally the Flash plugin goes wild, but VeryNice fixes that automagically after a few minutes (and later Konquerors also offer to fix it for you on the spot if set to do so).

    OTOH my book-keeper plugged a Win2k-based laptop into his LAN yesterday, and after much farting around (nothing as neat as MCC here) finally managed to get the internal firewalling shut down, and Norton's internet security thing, and the laptop still won't read the shares on the one (98SE) machine he wants it to, and nor will any of the other machines (98SE, 95, XP) read the laptop - but Samba reads it just fine, both the old version on the gateway and the new version on his LOB server. None of the other machines have any problems with each other (including Samba, both ways). Yes, the workgroup, authentication etc are all correct and consistent. Yes, he did reboot them all. The laptop is happy to talk to the chosen machine using WinSCP and the CygWin SSH server.

    That's my definition of "difficult to understand". And so much of Windows is like that. Case in point: all of the network settings for Win2k are in the network control panel - except for the machine identity, which is part of the properties on My [Bill's] Computer.

    People only think it's normal because they're used to it. Linux is not difficult, just different.

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  111. Social Engineering by sankyuu · · Score: 1

    From the article:
    [Bill Gates] noted that many of today's attacks succeed not for technical reasons, but through social engineering: Users are tricked into downloading code that can damage their computer or breach its security.
    I think this is reasonable, with Windows XP + SP2. IE warnings do tend to get annoying, so I prefer Firefox (+extension, e.g. flash block).

  112. Re:Ahem: I'll take this one... by TwistedSpring · · Score: 1

    Response to standard reply 1:
    The server market is not the same as the desktop market, especially as far as spyware and viruses are concerned. It's much more sensible to target dumb users, not server admins. Viruses spread better when a user can help them spread (e-mail clients etc.), and spyware would be pretty pointless on a server.

    Response to standard reply 2:
    You have to enter a root password to install anything

    I can't imagine anything worse than this. If I have to run every install as root, it'll become habitual, and that habit will leave me, as a dumb user, open to some seriously dangerous exploits. "I just downloaded Super Web Toolbar 5.7! Oh for christs sake, it's that root password dialog box again. I'm sick of that. Alright have the damn password. Sometimes I wonder why don't I just run as root all the time." - that is clearly NOT a good strategy.

    making a claim that Windows without a browser would be as secure as OSX without a browser is a bit disingenuous

    This is exactly why I said that the OS kernels themselves are very secure, and pointed out that it's the Microsoft software running on top of the NT kernel that contains the flaws (i.e. the shell). This isn't an important point anyway.

    I'd be very happy to see OS X take over the world. Very happy indeed.

  113. Why Not Linux? by gbulmash · · Score: 1
    Very simple... on Suse 9.2, I get the Firefox installer. I download it to my desktop, run it, and it's installed on my desktop... I don't mean a symlink icon to the application is placed on my desktop. I mean all the program's files are installed to my desktop folder. If I go to my KDE start menu, there's no entry for the newly installed Firefox. I have to do that manually.

    Should I decide to install Apache when I install Linux, where my http root is depends on the distro, not on a program default.

    It's not just hardware that "just works" that makes Windows easier to set up and manage on a day-to-day basis than Linux. It's software. It's a simpler directory structure, better file manager, better integration with the desktop manager.

    And let's face it, EVERY time I try to switch from Microsoft Office to a "just as good" competitor, I find that the competitor still lacks features I use and which are not stupid newbie things like "Clippy".

    In Word Perfect Office (a number of years back) it was an inability to aplhabetically sort lists over a certain size. In current incarnations of OpenOffice.org, it is an inability to find/replace "special" characters like paragraph breaks. These may be minor to the general public, but I use them and Microsoft has them. I use Open Office right now, and I recently missed that ability to find/replace paragraph breaks big time.

    Linux is a great desktop environment when you want to roll it out with a limited set of applications and limited privileges to an office environment, and can take the time to tweak and tune and get everything just right in a single install that will be duplicated across hundreds of machines that will be used by people who need e-mail, spreadsheet, word processing, calendar, browser, and that's it.

    But for a user like me, I find Linux a curiosity to poke and prod, not a production environment desktop OS by any means.

    - Greg

  114. Re:Linux.. by rediguana · · Score: 1

    Linux would be better. They get educated, participate in an open source community, and, bext of all, IT'S FREE!

    Sorry, and OS X users don't get educated and don't participate in an open source community? I'm sure there are many that do, and I'm going to be one of them. However I'll probably stick to OS X because for most of my uses it is far more developed than Linux (I've got about three FC3 servers floating around currently). Just because someone uses OSX doesn't mean that they are not prepared to contribute to OSS.

  115. Just blame the user. by Erris · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    I know for a fact I rarely use anti-spyware software on my Windows machine now because I haven't had problems. *shrug*

    If you don't have problems on a Windoze machine, it's because one of the following apply:

    1. It has no network drivers and sits behind a non Microsoft firewall that blocks all ports.
    2. It's not turned on.
    3. Being part of a botnet is not a problem for you, nor the inevitable BSoD and virus crap out.
    4. Your Windows machine is a Win4Lin partition you can wipe and reload with a shell script daily.

    If people didn't click on random links in spam and download the latest new files without thinking, we'd have far less spyware.

    Ah yes, blame the user. While technically true, what you say has some obvious holes. Like, I'm not afraid to run Windoze Media Files from ANY SITE because Xine does not run the executable crap-ola. I'm not really afraid to visit sites with Konqueror, though really nasty thing should only be touched with Dillo. I don't follow links in my email and neither does any free mail client. Outlook does not follow random links and load untrusted content either, it follows EVERY link and will burn you behind the best of firewalls. Nice differences, eh?

    Like the Italians say, you've got horns. Your computer has a ton of nasties and you are the only person who can't see it.

    --
    DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
    1. Re:Just blame the user. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you don't have problems on a Windoze machine, it's because one of the following apply:

      5. You're not a moron and you never log in as Administrator.

  116. Whose grandparents set up their own machine? by leonbrooks · · Score: 1

    For the few that do, Mandrake or Ubuntu will do the job just fine for them out of the box.

    Your basic premise is silly. In Real Life(tm), someone who knows enough to want to set up any system by themselves is either going to be sensible enough to not stuff things up by idiocy like deleting random system files, or a random turkey who is going to butcher any system that falls under their hands.

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  117. Re:Intel head is idiot by aleander · · Score: 1
    Really? Usually spyware installs itself as quietly as possible alongside other applications (ok, you may get a tiny note buried in the EULA but other than that it's practically trojan). I see no reason why the makers of spyware for Linux wouldn't try every trick in the book to get itself installed without the user noticing. Linux users can have accidents too :).
    No. The big user-friendly distros have enough software packaged to make unpackaged software "weird" for a normal user.
    I also see no reason why new Linux users won't run everything as root,
    Because Linux is better set up for such operation. It's hard to run lock down windows, many apps try to acces i.e. C:\program files etc (unnecessarilly). Linux was locked down from the beginning and the normal account is more convenient.
    or won't just be so used to the "This program requires root privileges" dialog box that they simply hammer in the root password automatically for everything that demands it.
    It's much harder to hammer a root password than click "yes". Most cases of installing trojans were accidents, mind You. And, unusual things frighten people.
    True. There are licencing issues with updating other vendors software, but these could certainly be overcome. Currently many applications (including Fx) rely on internal auto-update systems,[snip]
    And that solves nothing. Each app has it's own tool, so there is a half of a dozen of auto-update tools. Can get in the way even more than spyware ;)
    Linux could demonstrate an update service that allows every software group to release patches and updates over the same system, but it'd be difficult to implement in an environment where users can compile the software themselves, and put it in nonstandard locations.
    I think Zero-Install could solve that. Anyway, installing non-standard apps in non-standard ways is more of a non-standard user issue. Most users have a big, nice repo handy.
    I'll take this as mockery of Slackware.
    I'm a Slackware fan. But irrelevant shit is shit because it gets in the way. This time the lack of irrelevant shit were getting in your way, so irrelevant shit was no shit (and not irrelevant). Slackware is useful as long, as the amount of installed software is low enough to make hand-upgrades feasible.
    --
    Segmentation fault. Ore dumped.
  118. Re:Intel head is idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good post. Of course you are modded down in this fools website

  119. What if it isn't INTEL INSIDE but OS X on Intel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The rumors of Apple switching to Intel's processors
    are really old.
    But, what gets me is that the rumor always
    works like that. That Apple will ditch their chips
    and choose Intel.So, it seems odd that a variation of that rumor never surfaces:

    What if Intel starts making their own boxes and Apple supplies the OS? It would be like Motorola with their Starmax line, or, if you will, MS with the Xbox.

    It isn't beyond the pale because it would be setting up a cloner, only one, with a great deal of marketing clout to market not to graphics professionals, exactly, but, to consumers, though maybe biz people and perhaps enterprise, too. With only one cloner, Apple could still expect support costs to be so astronomical and they'd just be supporting software not hardware.

    While OS X benefits from Altivec and a ton of apps do, too. Maybe Apple would hedge that higher chip speeds could surplant the need to have Altivec enabled apps on Intel hardware. And, let's face it, Quicktime already runs on Windows so, it isn't a stretch to think that Apple made apps can't run effeciently on non-Apple hardware.

    just a thought.

  120. Re:What if it isn't INTEL INSIDE but OS X on Intel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Correction:
    I meant, that Apple's support costs would NOT be astronomical because they'd only be supporting software.

    For an example: Think: Apple's recent laptop battery recall. Or, customers cheesed that the G5 isn't in a powerbook. Why not have an Intel made notebook--they'd support the hardware-- that runs OS X --that Apple would support.

  121. MOD PARENT UP.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the ass, since he's apparently an apple user. HAHA I MADE A APPLE IS GAY FUNNY!

  122. What part of the story did you not understand? by Erris · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Oh man, what wishful thinking: Nothing here but a missquote. Ha, ha, ha, nice little dream.

    Big story: Two big Wintel people are fed up with M$ shit. Mossberg, a big Wintel fan, got Otellini to whine about his daughter's infested Wintel box that eats all of his weekend time. That Mossberg would even go there means the M$ world is screwed. That Otellini would say anything approaching don't buy a Wintel box means the M$ world is screwed. Those of us outside the M$ world have a tendency to forget how bad it is. Unfortunately, Windoze is so common that it's hard to avoid but so screwed up that the rare use always sucks and what you hear is always bad. Face it, what you are hearing is people who loved M$ who now hate it because it simply blows.

    --
    DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
    1. Re:What part of the story did you not understand? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Substituting "M$" for "MS" only serves to dilute the value of your words to anyone who has passed adolescence.

    2. Re:What part of the story did you not understand? by Gropo · · Score: 1
      Mossberg, a big Wintel fan, got Otellini to whine about his daughter's infested Wintel box...
      I believe you're mistaken. Mossberg is, if anything, a pretty big advocate of the Mac... His study reportedly contains a wallshelf featuring a variety of old Mac and other Apple designs.

      That aside, he's actually a pretty agnostic and broad-minded columnist as far as tech columnists are concerned.

      --
      I hate Grammar Nazi's
  123. Re:Intel head is idiot by TwistedSpring · · Score: 1

    Entertaining.

    You assume that popularity is inversely proportional to security
    I assume that the more popular an OS is, the more secure it becomes through security fixes. I believe that this is a valid point when considering desktop software. I do not believe that software becomes less secure as popularity increases, that would be moronic. I believe that software is insecure until tested for flaws, and that the greatest test of flaws is massive use and masses of people searching for new exploits to take advantage of. Anyone who says that popularity is inversely proportional to security is crazy. "I just wrote this software! Only two people use it, therefore it is TOTALLY secure compared to the rival product that 45,000 people use!" - there is a problem with this statement that I am sure you can spot.

    You assume that part of the problem is the entire problem
    I never said it was the entire problem. You assumed that from my post.

    You fail to account for different security models.
    I'll give you that one.

    Not all bugs are security flaws
    Not all cars have four wheels.

    Privilege separation prevents many problems
    Not when I am the sole user of the system and can grant security privileges without full knowledge of the consequences. "I find running as a normal user too prohibitive and I often get prompted for passwords or told I can't do things with MY OWN DAMN COMPUTER! Therefore, I run everything as root. I want full control damn it!" is common, and will become very common when operating systems that allow full privilege separation become suitable for anyone to use.

    Different systems are inherently more or less vulnerable to exploits
    Obviously. But nobody's perfect. Not even Linux. I'm sure that my Gameboy Advance won't be getting any trojan horse viruses, but then I was pretty damn sure that my Bluetooth mobile phone wouldn't be getting any viruses and hey, what do you know? Along they come. If there's a will, there's generally a way. I admit that some systems are simply better written and better designed than others and this leaves them less susceptible to exploits. I will not concede that any desktop operating system with a web connection can be unquestionably secure.

    Not all security flaws are of the same severity
    I certainly failed to consider this, because it wasn't at all relevant to what I was posting. I never said that "this is shit because it will have massive security flaws just like the massive security flaws found in IE", I merely stated that there will be flaws.

    Running as root is almost always a problem, no matter the system
    Operating systems that encourage users to run things as root for day-to-day tasks like installing and uninstalling software are generally improperly designed. If running as root is in any way avoidable, software should be designed to support that. Software should warn if it is being run as root. Educate the user.

    Security is by design, not accident
    Yes. This does not excuse the fact that the design may be extremely bad. It may also be very good. We'll have to wait and see.

    Nice idea, but it's been said before and that doesn't make it any more true.
    I'm glad you didn't choose the "moron" option, but I expect that will probably come up after this post.

  124. Mandrake! Mandrake! Mandrake! by leonbrooks · · Score: 1

    Haven't tried it on any of my own grandparents yet, but daughters and the like seem happy.

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  125. Re:Maybe MS will spend their money on fighting mal by dangrover · · Score: 3, Funny

    Or they could make an OS that isn't, you know, horribly insecure.

  126. Yeah, by leonbrooks · · Score: 1

    right.

    Yes, you were being sarcastic - but this is SlashDot. You need either to add the <sarcasm> tags or be as subtle as a haddock across the chops.

    Hmm, amazing what a fairly innocent search will turn up.

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  127. Re:Intel head is idiot by TwistedSpring · · Score: 1

    So, the *only* reason it "gets" viruses is because it's popular? With respect sir, you're simply out of touch with reality.

    OK, I'll retract that and say that the major reason that viruses and spyware target Windows is that there is little point in targeting anything else. Viruses are designed to spread, Spyware is designed to collect user information. To meet these goals as fully as possible (spread as fast as possible, collect as much user information as possible), viruses and spyware are naturally targeted at the operating system with the widest use. Sure, some viruses are written simply because the author bares a grudge against some sort of OS, or wants to be the first to target a particular OS, but in general my point stands. If one in one hundred users of a particular OS wants to write a virus for that OS, it's pretty safe to say that as the number of users increases so does the number of people inclined to write viruses. I admit I'm making unfounded and relatively simplistic assumptions here. I'd like to believe that popularity does play some part in the amount of attempts to exploit that popularity to spread a virus or collect as much data as possible, or show as many ads to as many people as possible. I cannot really see much problem with that. Care to explain it?

  128. Linux better for developers by onlyjoking · · Score: 1

    Well, O'Reilly articles to the contrary, Linux is still by far the better OS for developers. Why? Because it takes a lifetime of adding and installing software on OS X to get it anywhere what comes with a full default installation of Fedora. I just spent days getting PHP4, PHP5 and mod_perl running with MySQL 4.0 and 4.1 on OS X Tiger with proxied Apache instances. On OS X PHP several necessary libraries wouldn't compile and even then PHP4 wouldn't recognise them - libexpat for example. So many missing libraries even after Developer Tools was installed. With a kitchen sink Fedora install it takes less than an hour and I have all the developer tools and libraries I'm going to need.

    1. Re:Linux better for developers by eadint · · Score: 1

      Wow you must really not know unix, i did the sane thing in an hour.

  129. Crap! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I've been given free versions (legally)

    I read that as "I've been given free virgins (legally)". I need coffee. /shuffles away

  130. Re:Intel head is idiot by TwistedSpring · · Score: 1

    Err thanks. I guess. I think some of my comments were taken rather too literally but I'm used to Slashdot readers reading between the lines and finding stuff that totally goes against what I was trying to say. A lot of them are extremely faithful to their OS and will jump on their high-horse to defend it, even if I'm not really criticising it. I see operating systems and software as tools, not as political parties.

  131. I think he enjoys removing spyware by CarlHungus · · Score: 1

    I'd have thought that, as CEO of Intel, Mr. Otellini would have the insight to delegate the boring task of spyware removal to one of his subordinates. I'd also have thought that, on a CEO's salary, he could well afford to pay some struggling IT undergrad to do it for him.

    My guess is that every hour per week Mr. Otellini spends on his daughter's computer is one less hour he has to spend playing with her.

    Buying a Mac(or something else, as the quote alludes) isn't the answer. He needs to buy his daughter a book or some toys so she's got something to do while he enjoys pottering around with his spyware removal tools.

  132. Re:Na ubhe rnpu jrrx?! by 64nDh1 · · Score: 2, Informative

    The comment reads:

    An hour each week?

    First, if you read the article, he is hardly recommending Apple. Second,

    "He spends an hour a weekend removing spy ware from his daughter's computer."

    Wow, is he the last person to have heard of 'Search and Destroy' or even MS's new anti-spy ware programs? Is it really a good sign that his daughter can't keep the computer clean? If she is old enough to browse the sites that have a lot of spy ware on them (an hours worth of work every week), she should be old enough to do something about it. If not, they should have some parental controls (won't fix it, but will help). Firefox anyone?

    Anonymous ROT13 karma whor

    The translation was obtained here, and the details on the ridiculous encryption method is available from the Wiki. It's a Caesar Cipher, and about as difficult to break as reading "HAL" as "IBM" in Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey.

  133. Re:Intel head is idiot by TwistedSpring · · Score: 1

    If you wrote the first OS X virus, nobody would believe you because nobody would have heard about it. There's still room for you to write the most crazy, virulent, destructive Windows virus in history. There's being the first, and then there's being the best. I think most virus authors would go for being the best. It's all a competition.

  134. Odd, that doesn't sound like... by leonbrooks · · Score: 1

    ...RPMdrake to me.

    BTW, that screenshot is eleven generations old now. The new ones are even better, but I wanted to make the point that Linux has had this facility since more than a year before OS X was even released.

    If you want a piece of software which has not been diskimaged, you need to go through exactly the same rigmarole you posit for Linux, but without URPMI or apt-get or YAST or yum or whatever to help you find dependencies.

    Unless you're after something from Fink - a third-party effort which exists because...? Anyone...? [distant chorus: Apple's packaging is deficient]

    Same story for Wintendo, of course, only there ain't no WinFink (although CygWin is close) and it don't come with no useful build system at all 'coz Microsoft are really only interested in having dependants, not partners.

    The implication behind the diskimage install is that either the Apple apps have no dependencies (interesting concept), or everything gets shipped statically linked. Do your DMGs automatically upgrade with the rest of your system?

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
    1. Re:Odd, that doesn't sound like... by moongha · · Score: 1

      Unless you're after something from Fink - a third-party effort which exists because...? Anyone...? [distant chorus: Apple's packaging is deficient]

      I use darwinports.

      The implication behind the diskimage install is that either the Apple apps have no dependencies (interesting concept), or everything gets shipped statically linked. Do your DMGs automatically upgrade with the rest of your system?

      Yes they do. Application packages include a version of needed libraries, but the system will link against the latest major version of the libraries in question available in the system.

  135. Re:The year is 2005. The name of the place:Babylon by pHatidic · · Score: 1

    Ambassador d'Ellen then added: "It went like beep beep beep."

  136. It takes a big spikey club... by leonbrooks · · Score: 1

    ...and lots of patience. Compare that with clicking on "delete" in RPMdrake or the like.

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  137. Oh, and... by leonbrooks · · Score: 1

    ...you get a new copy of each installed with every set of MS-Windows updates.

    I'm sure the originator of that little stroke of genius will be found staked across an anthill within hours of his name getting leaked.

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  138. Re:Mac sux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Did you try just plugging it in and using iPhoto? Both of my cameras (Canon and Fuji) work without any drivers. My Sony DV camera works with out any drivers either, just plug into the Firewire port.

  139. Re:Ahem: I'll take this one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The server market is not the same as the desktop market, especially as far as spyware and viruses are concerned. It's much more sensible to target dumb users, not server admins. Viruses spread better when a user can help them spread (e-mail clients etc.), and spyware would be pretty pointless on a server.

    Sure. But you have to admit that Apache is a great big hole in the "larger marketshare == more problems" line of thought. That's all I was correcting.

    casefive: You have to enter a root password to install anything
    You: I can't imagine anything worse than this.

    Um, how having software that installs itself, silently and automatically, simply by visiting a website? That is entirely worse than alerting the user that you are installing software and asking for admin info. Your "I'll get used to entering my password everywhere and do it willy-nilly" argument feels like another strawguy -- again, what we would like is for ALL WINDOWS USERS to work as non-admins for their regular account. And this is what Mac has by default. Are you arguing that automatic installation of unwanted software is a superior default? Your general user does not install dozens of pieces of software a day, and if they do we generally would assume they can be trusted to not install suspicious items.

    This is exactly why I said that the OS kernels themselves are very secure, and pointed out that it's the Microsoft software running on top of the NT kernel that contains the flaws (i.e. the shell). This isn't an important point anyway

    I was just making sure that you knew your comparison doesn't hold in any meaningful way. Whether to blame IE for needing to modify system files to browse the internet, or blame the NT kernel for allowing IE to touch system files is moot -- you still have a situation where IE is touching files it should not touch, in every single installation of Windows, throughout the world, for all time. But when NT allows IE to do tasks that ought to be forbidden, that does make NT, effectively, a less secure kernel.

  140. Intel Head Recommends Apple? by AstroDrabb · · Score: 2, Informative
    Is this article trolling or what? RTFM and see what the guy said:
    And when further pressed about whether a mainstream computer user in search of immediate safety from security woes ought to buy Apple Computer Inc.'s Macintosh instead of a Wintel PC, he said, "If you want to fix it tomorrow, maybe you should buy something else."
    Uh... where exactly did he "recommend" Apple? Where did he say, "yes, buy an Apple because they are better" or "yes, I recommend Apple"? Something different could be anything. Heck, his teenage daughter probably just needs IM, Web and Email. You can do that with any GNU/Linux or *BSD distro. Damn, you could even get Solaris x86 and do those basic things with it (and Solaris x86 sucks for a desktop).

    I do find it amazing that he didn't say "no, no, no... WinTel is the _only_ way to go". However, I would hardly call what he said as being an recommendation for Apple, Linux, Solaris or any other non MS Windows product. He basically is saying, "hey, if you don't want to deal with spyware, adware and viruses, your going to have to look at something other than MS Windows". I don't think that is telling us anything new. The whole freakin world knows that, yet the majority of the masses stick with the MS Crap(tm). Maybe Jane and Joe Six-Pack like spyware, adware and viruses?

    --
    If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
    it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
  141. [OT] tagline by leonbrooks · · Score: 2, Funny
    /My other computer is your Windows machine/
    I have a little sign in the back window of my car - about where people like to put their "My child is an honours student at..." stickers - saying in CAPS, slightly L33t5p0|<3|\|, dotmatrix font: "My leet hacker child owns your honour student's Windows box"

    I've seen one guy on the freeway flip from bored-silly/screensaver-mode to laughing at it so hard that he drove over the cateyes on the lane markers several times. Frustrated admin, I guess.
    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  142. Good call, 'coz... by leonbrooks · · Score: 2, Funny

    ..."Bill Gates Wrong Again" is hardly newsworthy. (-:

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  143. Re:Maybe MS will spend their money on fighting mal by Phroggy · · Score: 1

    1) hire cool web search programmers to infect the OSX

    I see this as being the most likely thing. I'm not saying Microsoft will hire them, but malware will come to OSX within the next few years.

    --
    $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
    $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
  144. Too many frigging choices. by Wolfier · · Score: 1

    Disclaimer: I'm a happy user of Slackware for years.

    Still, I'm going to say I don't expect Linux to take over the Desktop anytime soon. The problem? Choice. Choice is good, but excess of anything is bad - even choice.

    If the only distribution were MEPIS, I agree Linux is a viable option - even with hundreds of desktop-oriented distributions, it might still be possible if everyone and his dog is not reinventing the wheel by writing their "minimalist" editor and all distributions choosing a different default.

    Linux is a nightmare to support. On Windows, you're almost 100% sure your user will have a clean, easy-to-work-with editor, aka Notepad. On Linux, you'll have to ask - open a text editor...do you have Gvim? Nope? How about Nedit? Nope? Xemacs? Nope? How about xedit - yeah, that's it...with its archic and ugly interface. You get the idea. Too many choices WITHOUT A DEFAULT is a problem.

    Also, higher assumptions are difficult to make when you develop software (apart from POSIX, you almost cannot assume anything) - which version of libc do you use? On Windows it does not matter - for example, msvcrt.dll just seems to be better at being backwards compatible than glibc - just rename the library and it'll most likely work. With glibc, it'll most likely complain - I know it is in theory a better safeguard - but I don't want to care if all I want to do is to run a browser.

    Linux will be viable for the Desktop on the day all distributions agree on a set of defaults for GUI apps, which unfortunately LSB does not cover.

    And for some reason I don't think that day is coming soon.

  145. Re:Less Spyware on Macs by rainman_bc · · Score: 1

    Good to know. Home the mods catch your post... I've got adblock doing pretty good things for me now - i just didn't realize the popups came from flash.

    That blows.

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  146. Yeah, but only about 200ml... by leonbrooks · · Score: 1

    ...then it starts to run out the sides. Yes, even if you do tape over that silly hole. I'm using the model 52X coffee holder, if that matters.

    The coffee holder doesn't keep it warm, either, and the fan-forcing on the only really warm bit blows it around too much and makes icky stains on the inside of my flouro-illuminated case window. If I turn the machine on its side, maybe I can use the second-warmest bit that my screen plugs into?

    Sorry, maybe I should have started with a C|N>K warning?

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  147. What I Know by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    I haven't had any viruses either,

    More impressive to me though is that my mom (who runs OS X) has ALSO not had any viruses or trojans. Not just us computer experts. *shrug* Go figure!

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  148. Market share theory is bunk by xeno-cat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    People who use this market share theory are engaging in logical falicy.

    The fact that Windows is attacked (and exploited) does not mean that it is as secure as Linux or Mac because they are not attacked. What it does prove is that Windows is insecure. It says nothing about Linux or Mac security and people who speculate about Linux or Mac exploits if these systems had a higher market share are just that, speculating. The Windows exploits do prove that Windows is insecure however.

    As you note, cell phones have viruses so it's not like virus writers are'nt interested in trying new things. Your other insights are dead on as well.

    Kind Regards

    --
    "A few great minds are enough to endow humanity with monstrous power, but a few great hearts are not enough to make us w
  149. What is inexcusable by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Is selling a computer unfit for use except by the trained.

    Are you honestly suggesting that people have a licence in computer configuration before being allowed to buy a computer? Because that's what it means when you say it's inexcusable to not own a properly configured computer. That is the only correction when "further configuration" is the answer to security issues.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  150. There are other alternatives than Apple by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 1

    Linspire and Xandros, for example, are easier to use and install Linux distros. I hear that Unbunto Linux is easy to use as well as free to download.

    OS/2 was reborn as eCS, I hear that the 32 bit Windows malware don't even run in it.

    BeOS and ZetaOS, still available, and there does not seem to be any malware written for it.

    FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, Darwin X86, also alternatives. Yet suffer from the complexity that some Linux distros have.

    AmigaOS, I think there was a X86 port at one time. The AmigaOne is still sold, IIRC.

    Solaris, I heard there was an open source version of it due out soon.

    JavaOS, whatever happened to this one? A complete Java based OS.

    Q*NX, an easy to use Unix.

    Thin Clients, or old PCs running VNC, that go to a server that has limited access rights for the users so malware won't be installed in the first place. It is constantly monitored, and any threats removed.

    --
    Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
  151. Re:The year is 2005. The name of the place:Babylon by Ziviyr · · Score: 1

    Oooh, Babylon-X.4 was supposed to have enabled a change of tide in the Adwars a thousand years ago, right?

    --

    Someone set us up the bomb, so shine we are!
  152. Kid oriented websites are spyware infested by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kids websites are among the WORST in spyware and malware. Anyone with kids or who works in education knows this. They're also the worst in pop ups and and other awful stuff (like gator or cool cursors or whatever).

    They're targetted at kids, most of em pre-HS; who see animated characters or whatnot and want wallpaper or pictures or cursors and get tricked into spyware.

  153. If you're too dumb to fix it today... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you want to fix it tomorrow, maybe you should buy something else.

    Subtext: "If you're too dumb to fix it today, then perhaps you should buy something else."

  154. Re:"startling confession" - Apple using Intel chip by MidnightBrewer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Apple will not be using Intel chips as processor chips anytime in the near future. The only people who would even consider that plausible are people who don't yet own a Mac, and therefore aren't faced with the problem of not only buying a new computer, but also re-purchasing every software title they own if they actually want it to work on the new machine.

    As someone who uses his Mac for video and animation production, that would be a hefty price tag indeed. Apple's not interested in pissing off its current user base, so the answer should be pretty obvious. Intel chips, yes. Intel processors, no.

    --
    "Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
  155. Who remembers GOOD TIMES? by argent · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The thing morons like this Intel guy don't realise is that Windows only gets viruses and spyware because virus and spyware writers get the most reach by targeting the OS that runs on 90% of desktop computers.

    Until about 1997 there was a pretty even playing field for viruses and malware. Yes, you got them more on Windows, but pretty much the only real propogation mechanisms were social engineering attacks in email and dropping infected files on LAN shares. If you didn't run attachments you were pretty safe, no matter what the platform, and there were Mac viruses, even though this was at the nadir of Apple's popularity, there were even Amiga viruses and Amiga was never more than a tiny fraction of the market.

    There was this joke going around about this thing called the "good times" virus. Everyone knew it was a joke, because it was a virus you could get JUST BY OPENING THE MAIL. That was obviously impossible, because nobody would be stupid enough to use a mail viewer that could run local scripts. I mean, people were even moving away from Word to this new program "Word Viewer" vecause of macro viruses in attachments (and, remember, you don't run attachments).

    Then Microsoft made Good Times real. And the number of viruses went through the roof. And what's more amazing, not only didn't Microsoft fix the problem, they fought the Justice Department over fixing the problem (the DoJ didn't think of it that way, but what they wanted Microsoft to do would have removed all variations of the 'active scripting' and 'cross zone attacks' for good).

    Microsoft still hasn't fixed the underlying problem. They have made it harder to exploit, but I still get spam-like mail that tries to run ActiveX controls, and occasionally someone comes to me and says "uh, Peter, it asked me if I wanted to run a control and I said 'yes' and I have a virus". Or, '... and I said 'yes' AGAIN'. Yes, people have repeatedly said "yes" to these prompts.

    Never used to happen over and over again when they had to download files to open them. And it's really only Microsoft that seems to think letting people install browser plugins with no more than an "OK" is "OK"... though Apple *has* started down this path, they at least let you unconditionally turn it off for good by disabling "open safe files after download" in your preferences. You can't DO that in IE, not everywhere you really need to, not without breaking applications.

    1. Re:Who remembers GOOD TIMES? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YES! I remember this exact timeframe, and expressing reservations that, for example, I couldn't be SURE an email was entirely safe. I remember being told I was a dumbass for saying so, because it was OBVIOUS to Mr. Superiority that just simply opening an email could NEVER launch a virus. Well, all I was making clear was that neither of us could make such a blanket statement. The past 10 years have, sadly, proven this clearly. Millions of lines of code and dozens of versions of technologies not to mention actual flaws all running under the hood mean many vectors of attack are possible...as SQLS describes, such a function is indeterminate, and you cannot claim to know all these vectors. (also I remember 1987 having bought an Amiga was mocked by a co-worker that there were VIRUSES for it (big news then), and Macs had never had any... ever ;-) )

  156. Your sig. by Hymer · · Score: 0

    As long as your are telling us that all windows problems are Bill Gates fault you need to confirm that you are not a script. ;-)

  157. Re:Linux.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe they just want a car that's reliable transportation out of the box.

    I don't know about you, but I wouldn't trust any car that comes in a box. First of all, you know it won't come with a battery right?

  158. Re:Linux.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it now? I have never had to do any regular maintenance on any appliance I have ever owned, nor have they ever needed it.

    I like this strategy.

    A: "Problem? What problem?"

    B: "Well sir,"

    A: *interrupting* "No, I don't want to hear about it! So long as I don't know about any problems, then they don't exist!"

    A word of advice, use adaware or some equivalent, run a scan; if nothing comes up, then you can talk about how everything you own is perfect.

  159. Maybe Apple is so secure... by daryk · · Score: 1

    I'm just thinking to myself here... Maybe Apple computers are so secure because they are a minority (compared to Windows). If someone is going create malware/adware/etc, they aren't going to program for an operating system where their programs are rarely going to encounter. If OS X was in 4 out of 5 homes, I think people would start hacking it to bits and it'd be flooded with malware/viruses/hackers or whatever. Anyway, that's just what I think. =)

  160. Re:The beatings will continue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Beat a bit of sense

    What is it with Slashdot denizens and the exagerated use of violence to 'solve' problems. Playing too much Doom?

    Obviously you didn't 'beat' them and probably couldn't if you tried, however you feel the need to claim that you used violence. Why is this? Do you ever feel tempted to say you 'bitch-slapped' someone despite the mysoginist, bullying allusions of this phrase? Further up on this thread someone said they should 'bitch-slap' their daughter, that's sick.

  161. Wintel by kuzb · · Score: 1

    Good thing I bought an AMD!

    People who suggest buying a whole new computer instead of just replacing the windows operating system are at best, funny.

    --
    BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
  162. Careful analysis of the text proves it... by zpok · · Score: 1

    He did recommend Apple, what else would you "buy". Linux? It's free. So unless he meant Atari, I guess it must have been Apple. Or are you suggesting it was Solaris?

    And in my spare time I prove conspiracy theories by cutting out the funnies and combining them in novel ways. (look what casper's doing with that little girl!)

    --
    I think, therefore I am...I think.
  163. Why not Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With his wording, nothing points to Apple. "If you want to fix it tomorrow, maybe you should buy something else." might be refering to escape Windows, say to migrate to Linux.. why would you think hardware and apple?

  164. Melbourne College dumps Linux for Apple by Nice2Cats · · Score: 1
    In other Apple news, rejected by the Slashdot editors: Trinity College in Melbourne, Australia has just dumped Debian Linux on some of their machines for OS X "Tiger", quoting ease of use for non-technical users as the reason. Read about it here, among other places. We're talking about 20 machines, and they are going to keep Debian in other labs, but the article is interesting because of the quotes from the Trinity's system admin, one of which is: "Apple is back". Trinity seems to have been one of the leaders in adopting Linux in 2000.

    This supports my theory that the biggest threat to Linux is not Windows, but OS X: If you like Unix, you're probably not going to switch to Windows, but you very well might switch to Apple.

    Again: It would be nice for Slashdot to have a "rejected" section so people could see what wasn't chosen. I realize that would put some pressure on the editors, but sometimes I wonder if that would really be a bad thing.

  165. Re:Maybe MS will spend their money on fighting mal by KanSer · · Score: 1

    Has anyone considered how many people Microsoft keeps employed by making shitty software?

    How many slashdotters would be out of a job if tomorrow every windows platform was 100% secured?

    Consider your local pc repair shop. They get plenty of business because of microsoft. They also seel pcs with microsoft on it. An inherently secure OS destroys a secondary economy. One which M$ relies on.

    So like, quit bitching about removing spyware, and do what I do. Charge for it.

    --
    • MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward Wednesday April 20, @4:20
  166. WARNING! Thread hijacked by Apple Fan Boys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can the Slashdot editors please do something about this? See the problem? When Fanboys have mod points, they mod exclusively pro-Apple comments (no matter how well refuted their claims are), but when Linux geeks have mod points, they to mod up science stuffs, cs stuffs, math stuffs. There is no symmetry here. No RECIPROCITY here. Someone has to come up with a better solution.

    1. Re:WARNING! Thread hijacked by Apple Fan Boys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Someone has to come up with a better solution."

      Getting a life would be the best solution imaginable.

      Internet- SERIOUS BUSINESS.

  167. Re:Linux.. by Tim+C · · Score: 1

    I pay someone else to do that to my car.

  168. the dad hasn't done the job if the daughter is... by krunk4ever · · Score: 1

    downloading spyware and adware all the time. i personally don't know how old this kid is, but maybe he shouldn't be giving her that much permission or access rights. my sister used to have a computer filled with spyware/adware, almost rendering it unusable. she begged me to fix it and i made her promise me to never use internet explorer again (unless a site she needed didnt work in firefox) and to not install random crap. she promised me and since then, she has not gotten a single spyware or adware on her computer. you can blame windows for being insecure, but i think most of the blame goes on the user and those malware programmers. certainly, the os could've taken extra steps to protect the user, but with education on software usage and virus/malware avoidance, i can proudly say, my father's computer, my brother's computer, my sister's computer, all of my computers, and most of my inner circle of friends' computers are free of such bugs.

  169. Apple is not more secure, it's just not widespread by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    - Apple is not more secure, no way. In the very early 90's, must viruses were made for Mac, not the Wintel.

    -It is simply economics: you can infect 100x more computers with the same functionality malware for x86 than Apple, because there are 100x as many Wintel PC. No sane VXer would ever write malicious code for the Mac, because you get much less slaves in return. Nowadays every infected computer is worth $$$ serving as a spam zombie or DDoS soldier. Pure economy it is.

    -Apple users are generally more clueless than PC users when it comes to security. If there comes a truly capable Mac malware ever, there will be a lot of crying and grinding of teeth among the foot-pedal users (one button mouse that is).

    -An Apple computer can do 1/10th of what a Wintel box is capable of. The IBM PC is a general purpose computer, with an endless number of hardware and software expansions possible. An Apple box locks you into proprietary and uses are very narrow: imaging, desktop publishing, music, education, etc. I don't see Mac OSX being used to collect measurement data in a lab.

    There comes a price with IBM PC flexibility though. You lose some stability and safety. But market data shows most computer users are willing to take the risks associated with the endless possibilities. The x86 platform is like the Wild West and Apple is like Sweden or other comfortable big daddy big taxes welfare country.

  170. Return of the Mac. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I really don't need to comment, but...

    I guess I just needed to share my excitement in just ordering a brand new 15" PowerBook G4 (even though I'm sure the G5 will be out in a second). The machine is just so beautiful (the most beautiful in the world, I might add), clean, and sweet. I'm a hard-core Linux user (actually typing this from Slackware/FireFox, which will remain unchanged on this desktop server), but I figure that I'll take my chances with Apple one more time (last time was in 1997). Besides, OS-X is FreeBSD, i.e. Unix.

    And, besides, if Apple tries to fsck me Microsoft style, I'll load Ubuntu faster than your next heartbeat on the beautiful machine.

    Another reason why I switched.

  171. Re:"startling confession" - Apple using Intel chip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Intel makes most of it's money selling to OEMs in huge quantities.

    Are any of those OEM's Apple? How many of those OEM's only sell Windows? Dumbass.

  172. Re:the dad hasn't done the job if the daughter is. by TiggsPanther · · Score: 1
    i personally don't know how old this kid is, but maybe he shouldn't be giving her that much permission or access rights.

    In theory you're right on the nail. You should not need to give kids that level of access rights. But, as we know by now, some games (the Sims being one commonly brought up) simply choke if not run under administrator rights.

    If anything this is the worst type of software to need admin rights, as it's often the kids who play the games. So you're requiring kids either running with admin rights, routinely knowing how to run programs with those rights or routinely logging into the parent's account to play games. This is not a good thing.

    --
    Tiggs
    "120 chars should be enough for everyone..."
  173. Internet Explorer by martin · · Score: 1

    At work we find the problem is Internet Explorer.

    Users can still us Windows, we just make sure the default browser is Firefox, make IE difficult to find (remove from Desktop etc) and we don't habve the issues again.

    You don't have to replace the entire hardware, just the browser with the silly idea of automatigically installing stuff.

  174. Re:Maybe MS will spend their money on fighting mal by CptWheel · · Score: 1

    spending money on fighting malware, cleaning it up or making it illegal won't ever work. ever.

    the only thing wich works is spending money on software quality, not from look & feel or user interface or features point of view, but from software design & security view. this is so simple that not much people realise this. imagine: if it is unable to install malware, virus or adware because software is foolproof, and secure by design (!), there would be no malware at all. you don't need laws making it illegal or any antivirus software.

    certainly, programmers aren't gods and sometimes an error or buffer overflow or something other makes its way into code. if business policy is to fix it next-business-day or even asap or.., it can be easy because good software can have a typo at most, forgot endless[len] = 0, or... but these can be solved by recompiling & patching. design flaws cannot be fixed fast or completely. windows itself _is_ full of design flaws, what about apps? this is not a flame, if you coded for windows, you know.

    if security holes are regulary closed by vendors in reasonable terms, all those who care are fine. those who don't? in my world, there are none. we all use apt-get update && apt-get -y upgrade in daily crontab. this is possible on windows as well - but why didn't ms invested in such system? because development of hidden system features or even rewriting some base parts of code is hard to sell. they need nice looking apps. feature-rich. like html email. what will be next?

    if malware or viruses have no easy way of spreading because software is secure, and regulary updated, there would be no malware. and be sure there are secure software systems: imagine life support machines in hospitals. or others. why they are not used on desktop? because tehre are used systems like qnx or plan9 or tens others, which are too difficult for the joe average. but ms programers aren't joe average... are they? so why they don't design & code correctly then?

    ms had/has effective marketing people, they sell lighter to lucifer. they managed to get 90%+ uniform environment. we all know that uniform environment is relatively stable and very good in self-developing and productivity. but is vulnerable. ability to damage one node of uniform environment is ability to destroy the 90%+. this is beautifule environment for malware. imagine boris veryclever and his ability destroy 90% of the world.. but if ms only had 20% and remaining computers were spread between 5-10 more _incompatible_ vendors, boris would be able to destroy only 20% or less. if he would be willing to start code for the 20% at all... who cares of 20%...

  175. Not willing. by Aldric · · Score: 1
    For someone that just plays solitaire, surfs, uses webmail, and types the odd letter for printing you can skin KDE to look like Windows, Firefox to look like IE, and OO.o already looks so much like Word that no one can tell the difference. And still they aren't happy because it's not Windows.

    My personal feeling is that they are convinced that using a computer is supposed to be painful. They seem to miss the viruses and spyware,

  176. Some reality by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

    A guy at level of being Intel CEO does NOT allow such a leak.

    Intel and Apple are on something but no, Apple won't leave powerPC platform or we leave Apple :)

    If they are fishing for community response, let me say my part. Nobody on Earth can sell me a LCD tablet PC while http://www.e-ink.com/ is well and alive, selling stuff already in Japan.

  177. linux isn't an option for most by dwntwnboi · · Score: 1

    with ununified package delivery systems, and a myriad of other nightmarish necessities in linux (which, in my opinion are oly still around cuz being able to deal with them makes linux geeks feel special), OSX is the only way to go. sure, i'd put linux on my pc (and have several times), but the damned OS PUNISHES you for trying to install a driver, a program, or GOD FORBID, to uninstall anything. OSX has all of this under control. that is what makes it better than any linux distro right now.

    if these distros became easier to use (why hasn't it been done yet???), then there would be no more discussions of windows vs. linux. the choice would be clear.

    it comes down to this: if i have to run a couple 3-rd party apps to keep the ad/spyware away and viruses at bay, then i'd rather do that than have to be banished to command line hell to do anything from install a program, change a teeny little setting, or to run updates on my apps. f*ck linux and the horse it rode in on. pwer and ability aren't the only things that make an os great. without great usability (like osx), it's just garbage that gets in people's way.

  178. Interesting statement by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 1

    "It is being sold to Chinese consumers -- a market Mr. Otellini noted includes 60 million urban households that have the money and desire to buy a PC, but haven't."

    Capitalism Kap-i-tal-ism (n): Create a labor force that works for .025 a day, and then take that money back by selling them a product, by force if neccesary, they don't really want.

    --
    Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
  179. The crux of the security issue! by olafva · · Score: 1

    Many readers may be enlightened by reading David Pogue's New York Times Columns (free on the internet here). David debunked the security by obscurity argument by showing the the facts. Everyone in the World could have Macs and still clicking on an unknown attachment would still NOT contaminate your Mac or spread a virus to anyone for 3 reason David cites. Unlike Windows,

    1. OSX does NOT allow you to spoof file types (.doc is really .exe tht clicked could cause damage)
    2. OSX does NOT install a foreign file without 1st warning you that the file is foreign (suspect) and asking, do you really want to install this file.
    3. Even if you (or your grandparent) bungle through 1 an 2, and you somehow agree to intall the foreign (suspect) file, the clincher is to install the foreign file, you will be asked and required to enter the system password. There are not enought fools in the world that would do this to possibly damage their computer.

    1-3 above is why Macs are, and will always be, virus free (out of the box - yes OSX comes installed on new Mac systems) and why viruses don't have a "market" to spread on Macs. This is NOT a security by Obscurity issue. There was a $25,000 prize if anyone could produce a virus to penetrate OSX, and no one has yet. Now you can see why. By the way, I'm so confident about the security of mt Macs, I'm willing to put up another $25,000. I haven't seen any windows users so confident about the security. They just blindly continue installing service paks and security patches (as you do). and will continue to do so for years til Longhorn arrives. What a waste of time of talented individualy around the world.

    --
    What's past is NOT ALWAYS prologue for the future!
  180. Idiots attract spyware by Chewbacon · · Score: 1

    By sticking to open source software and Firefox, it's pretty easy avoid spyware. My anti-spyware software is pretty bored since I quit using IE.

    --
    Chewbacon
    The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
  181. Re:"startling confession" - Apple using Intel chip by bmw · · Score: 1

    By the time you buy that Dell, Intel has already made it's profit -- they don't care if it sits on the shelf. That's Dell's problem.

    Actually, it very quickly would become Intel's problem... If more and more people start buying something else then these Dells will start just sitting on the shelf and if enough of them do then the OEMs are going to order fewer of them. If they can't sell the ones they have, why would they buy more?

    That said, I do agree that this isn't going to hurt Intel's sales one little bit. Apple still has very little market share although they are showing quite a bit of promise for the future.

  182. Evade the majority, that's it. by tototitui · · Score: 1

    My adaware checks are irrelevent since I switched to firefox. I'm still convinced that it is mostly a question of volume... It takes time to develop a malware, easy math : should I spend time to develop my evil software for 74% of the ie/win32/x86 or the 11% ff/win32/x86, the 4.5% mac/ppc or the 0.6% linux/x86 ? (stats of gootz.net) This fact is not relevent to say if linux & mac are more secure but less targets.

  183. The biggest trick Microsoft ever pulled by Octorian · · Score: 1

    I agree with you 100%. On a very similar note, an even bigger trick Microsoft managed to pull was to convince users that computers being crash-happy, quirky, and otherwise prone to non-deterministic failures was normal.

    In fact, it has become quite socially acceptable for people to talk about how their computer is "broken," "slow," or otherwise "hates them." In reality, the computer is usually just perfectly fine and running well. The problem is some Microsoft software is either flaky, or so gummed up with 3rd party software that it becomes slow and/or flaky. The most annoying thing of all is that this is a natural side-effect of just actively using the darn machine for a while without any wipe-and-reinstall processes.

    I'm sorry, but computer OSes should not be prone to getting "full of cruft" from active use, and should not get "slower and quirkier over time" from any reason other than particular newer software getting more bloated/slower.

    And no, it's not that Linux/MacOSX/etc. being "stable" is anything special to write home about. Pretty much every other OS I've used is stable by default. It's Windows being "unstable" that's the unique thing.

    Before anyone tries to say that "newer versions don't crash all over the place anymore," please keep in mind that the issue I'm discussing isn't OS stability, but rather how MS has convinced the users that OS instability is the norm, and stability is some new thing to be cherished, if they're really good.

  184. What if... by trintron · · Score: 1

    .. Apple users deserts Macs with Intel processors in it? Seems lose-lose situation to me.

    1. Re:What if... by MrAnnoyanceToYou · · Score: 1

      How many Apple users do you know that care what kind of processor is in their machine? That's the whole idea behind a Mac, really : WYWIWYG. Who wants to deal with a pile of stuff behind the scenes if the only 'mechanical' part (including the back-end software) you need to know anything about is the power switch?

    2. Re:What if... by trintron · · Score: 1

      All Mac users I know wants to be as far away as possible from anything related to PC's. Including x86-prosessors. ;)

    3. Re:What if... by MrAnnoyanceToYou · · Score: 1

      heh. The mac users you know are less technically inept than the ones I know.

  185. NT for PPC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    yeah, heard rumors that NT once ran on PPC, but I don't think I've ever heard of actual products, unlike NT/Alpha
    NT 3.5 or 3.51 actually shipped for 3 platforms:
    • i386
    • alpha
    • PPC
  186. Re:"startling confession" - Apple using Intel chip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Dells? Sitting on the Shelf? OEMs buying Dells?

    Do you even know how Dell's buisness model works?

    (hit: No one except Dell sells Dells. )

  187. surprise, surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apple > Wintel, shocking.

    wintel architecture doesn't mean you only have to use windows.

    if it takes you an hour every week to remove spyware, you're an idiot and should not be giving advice.

    teach the damn daughter how to remove it!

  188. Re:Ahem: I'll take this one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just for your information, it's not the root password, it's the current user's password. You also have to be an administrator of the system (so you're effectively running sudo).

  189. Re:Apple is not more secure, it's just not widespr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what are you smoking?

  190. Re:Na ubhe rnpu jrrx?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ROT13 is NOT a Caesar Cipher

  191. Oh yeah? by Orne · · Score: 1

    My sister managed to catch her computer on fire.

    It seems that when she was moving back to college after winter break, she threw the tower in the back of the van laying on its side... Problem is, it was one of those Slot A motherboards, with the CPU mounted vertically. After the 4 hours of jostling, the chip worked its way loose, but not ALL the way loose....

    What would happen is, she would use the computer, and after about 40 minutes, something would heat up, expand a bit, and one of the pins on the CPU daughterboard would lose connection to the motherboard, and the machine would reset. Thinking this was just normal Windows weirdness, I tell her run virus check, update the video drivers, yada yada... (its not the first time she had windows eaten by a virus)

    Well, one day it just gives up the ghost, lets out a puff of blue smoke, and the whole machine shuts down... fortunately, the hard drive wasn't damaged & she got her reports, but the chip, ram and motherboard had to be tossed...

    Now she buys her computers with a replacement policy.

  192. Humorous Prospect by Quantam · · Score: 1

    Imagine Apple going after the Linux developers with an x86 Macintosh. Would be hilarious if the deathblow to Linux came not from Microsoft but from Apple. Realistic or not, it's certainly amusing to consider.

    --
    You have tried to support your argument with faulty reasoning! Go directly to jail; do not pass Go, do not collect $200!
  193. A partial quick fix by g8oz · · Score: 1

    This a quick and dirty way to improve the Windows experience for a civilian. This is especially useful when someone is infected but you don't have time or the energy to do a full cleanup.

    Most spyware (popups, toolbars etc) are implemented as something called BHOs or Browser Helper Objects that function as plugins to IE. When the user performs an action like going to a certain site, the BHO intercepts it and does its nefarious work, e.g reporting your action back to mothership, giving the user a popup etc.

    Therefore all you have to do is disable BHO functionality in Internet Explorer to deactivate the spyware and give the user some relief.

    In IE go to Tools=>Options=>Advanced and deselect
    "Enable third-party browser extensions". If the computer is Win XP SP2 then also go to Tools->Manage Add-ons and disable all the suspicious objects.

    As a side-note when is someone going to go after the heads of the spyware hydra? I'm talking about the "marketing" companies like FindWhat.com who fund the spyware makers and rake in the money ($169 million last year)?

  194. About step 3... by Merk · · Score: 1

    "3. Download and make them use spyware"

    My own humble opinion? Skip this step.

    1. Re:About step 3... by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      "3. Download and make them use spyware"

      My own humble opinion? Skip this step.

      Oops, typed too fast. sorry. Meant make them use spyware detection software like Spybot or Ad-Aware.

      My bad.

      [hope noone followed suggestion 3 ...]

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  195. Reading is not /.'s strong point. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Re-read that statement more carefully! His answer is nonsense and does not make clear if he in fact meant 'Apple' or 'Intel' by the phrase 'something else'. And what the frick does tomorrow have to do with it?

    Complete nonsense. Double-talk. Look it up.

  196. Re:"startling confession" - Apple using Intel chip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And Costco.

  197. Well, it's a good thing it wasn't Barbara Walters by douglasq · · Score: 1

    Otherwise, she might have gotten Otellini to cry.

    --
    "Form should follow function...unless it's just plain ugly."
  198. Re:"startling confession" - Apple using Intel chip by Groovus · · Score: 1

    Also, haven't we been getting news of Apple perhaps using Intel chips moreso than they already are? It would make sense (in fact it may be life or death) for Intel to diversify, and if they are, it's no difference to them if you use OSX or Windows - they'll have an interest in both. And linux of course runs just fine on Intel chips. I think Otellini may just be laying the groundwork for a less Windows centric Intel future here, good businessmanship.

  199. Re:"startling confession" - Apple using Intel chip by jcr · · Score: 1

    Fifteen? Try almost 30. The "Apple going to Intel" rumor predates the Mac. I remember hearing how Apple "had to go to the 8080" because "everybody else uses it" ever since the Apple II hit the streets.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  200. Re:Maybe MS will spend their money on fighting mal by slashdot-me · · Score: 1

    take a page out of the RIAA book

    Of course MSFT should adopt RIAA tactics! These tactics are clearly an effective deterrent as well as a smart PR move.

  201. Apple is worse than Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apple has been doing evil things with patents and lawsuits since the first Macintosh. Heaven help us if they ever got any significant amount of market share.

    Thanks, but I take Microsoft over Apple any day: Microsoft's software is so poor that it's easy to compete with, and Microsoft is less evil than Apple.

  202. Duh, seems referential now. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Huh. I wonder why he'd reference this.

    Today it all makes sense.