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.""
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
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.
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!
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
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.
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?
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*
US businesses that currently accept chip and PIN/signature
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
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
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."
fifth sigma, inc.
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".
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.
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?
You're purely delusional if you think Linux is as usable as OS X.
.app to Desktop. Drag to /Applications if you want.
./configure --with-froot-loops --some-other-thing --gravy-boat --use-libs=/usr/someplace/libs/local/libs/local_li bs/glibs/local/some_other_libs...
Installing software on OS X: disk image downloads, mounts, copies
Installing software on Linux:
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???
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.
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! --
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.
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.
Lasers Controlled Games!
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.
>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.
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.
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?
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
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.
8 41680;fp;16;fpid;0
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;1302
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.
Four roommates. No microwave. You do the math.
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.
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"
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...
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.
Let me see... You give the user the choice between:
.dmg image that gets automounted, copying the Application to the applications folder, entering a password. Presto the Application is ready to use. ...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.
1) Downloading a
2) Weeding his/her way throught this before he/she can update/install their Applications.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
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!
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.
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
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!
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!
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!
... 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
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
This laptop is Windows 2000.
... 0 virus, 0 spyware infections.
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
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...
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
"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).
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.
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
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
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).
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.
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
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.
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.
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
...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
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