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.
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.
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?
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.
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
An hour a weekend? Jesus, that's one horny little girl...
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.
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"
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?
M$ deserts Intel w/ Xbox 360,
Intel deserts M$ w/ Apple processors.
Seems fair to me.
My little site.
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.
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!
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
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...
>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.
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?
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.
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!
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
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.
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 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
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
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
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.
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.
"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).
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
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
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!
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.