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.""
Gerald Ratner and Matthew Barrett both said they would be honoured to attend.
liqbase
...the head of Intel visited by the Mafia, changes story next day. "I meant Windows! Windows!!" he bleats.
If it did, I just rebooted.
An hour a weekend? Jesus, that's one horny little girl...
Come on, he's a hardware man, not a software guy. He's in there soldering something . . .
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
M$ deserts Intel w/ Xbox 360,
Intel deserts M$ w/ Apple processors.
Seems fair to me.
My little site.
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.
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
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
Or they could make an OS that isn't, you know, horribly insecure.