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.""
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...
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.
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.
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
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?
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
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
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
- Way more respect for Mr. Otellini. I had assumed he got the job due to mob ties.
- 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.
An hour a weekend? Jesus, that's one horny little girl...
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
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.)
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.
"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...
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.
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.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
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
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
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???
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.
M$ deserts Intel w/ Xbox 360,
Intel deserts M$ w/ Apple processors.
Seems fair to me.
My little site.
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.
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! --
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.
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?
Clearly time to replace the Blue Man Group with... The Four Horsemen.
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.
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.
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...
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
You can create shortcuts that integrate runas
/user:ieuser /savecred "C:\Program Files\Internet Explorer\IEXPLORE.EXE"
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
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.
More entertaining is Scott McNealy's section
... For another $2.4 billion maybe I won't say that."
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.
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
You had to wait until AFTER Apple switches to Intel chips to say that!
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!
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...
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 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."
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
why? he's a business man, not desktop support.
Sure. But doesn't every father want to lock up his daughter's box??
For your "if Apple had a Windows-sized market share it would have Windows-sized problems" comment: I will respond with - /. in general.
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
...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.
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
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.
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
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.
Or they could make an OS that isn't, you know, horribly insecure.
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.
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.
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
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
..."Bill Gates Wrong Again" is hardly newsworthy. (-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
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
"BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
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.