Slashdot Mirror
Want Security? Make The Switch
Lord_Slepnir writes "Security firm Sophos Security has released a report claiming that Macs will be more secure than Windows for some time to come. The report listed the 10 most common kinds of malware, and noted that they can only infect Windows systems."
Anyone who is in "the industry" knows this. They just like to say the things people like to hear though...
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
As more users make the switch, so will the malware coders.
That said, it will be years before OSX overtakes Windows, if it ever does. Still, with OSX's mature tried-and-true UNIX core, I don't see as many problems as with MS's OS.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
With Boot Camp Windows can soon infect Macs.
I love my mac, but articles like this are somewhat misleading. Surely the reason the top 10 pieces of malware are Windows only isn't something as mundane as the 90% / 10% market saturation of windows vs. Mac devices. Even if the same malware app was on ever single mac connected to the net, it still wouldn't show up in this top 10.
arhum,
Mallware, what about Finder.
A nice fp true to the spirit of slashdot.
Alright Microsoft, it's time to start producing some spyware/malware/viruses for the Mac!
Wow, they managed to predict the present.
diegoT
..people want to attack bigger targets more than smaller ones.
I'm just going to keep all my important stuff on a TI-99/4a from now on. Let's see the botnets get hold of that!
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
Why would I write a piece of malware that would only target a small segment of the market? If one wanted to further one's nefarious plans wouldn't it be smart to go after the biggest slice of the pie?
Quis custodiet custodes ipsos?
Here's a link to the Sophos webpage with more detail, and a whitepaper which you can download if you fill in some contact details.
The first and foremost thing MS should do to make Windows more secure is to disable the call home when installing WinXP. From the moment it logs in, it is prone to attack and the user is left defenseless upto the moment installation is completed and a zillion trojans have had ample time to install. Atleast make it so the call home is performed AFTER I had the chance to install a virusscanner and firewall.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Well sure... follow the money... There is no point in compromising a Mac but if you hack Windows you have a marketable product. After the pigs sprout wings and Macs take over the 95% market share lets see how many proffesonal hackers turn there attention away from Microsoft's products. Saying OSX is more robust than Windows XP is irelivant... where there is a will there is a way.
I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way.
Mark Twain
Maybe the OS-dependent malware is on Windows but not MacOSX, but there are still some serious computer-delivered attacks that don't depend on the operating system. Social exploits like phishing and pay-forward scams still attack the gullible on any platform. Cross-site scripting exploits can still put web services such as PayPal and Amazon at risk. This has little to do with the platform, and I think many MacOSX fans are falsely smug over the whole thing.
[
If you really want to follow the security through lack of marketshare model then you should install os/2 or dos.
Linux, right? Seriously, though, this is going to start the usual flamewar, with both sides refusing to budge on the views about their systems. Nothing new. I run Windows (for games...and Linux for most everything else...and I do like Macs, but haven't been able to get one recently), and haven't had a virus or malware problem in years. I run a good firewall/anti-virus combo along with using Ad-aware and the rest. I don't click on banner adds and I don't install strange pop-up programs. Pretty simple really.
these things happen to other people
I heard those are immune to just about ALL malware out there, and will remain so for eons. And the technology has been tested and troubleshot for centuries, so it's basically bulletproof.
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
I'm a Mac user, a Windows user, and a Linux/BSD user, and I can tell you straight up that while Windows takes more effort to lock down, almost nothing in this world prevents people's stupidity -- succumbing to a phishing email or clicking on an embedded link when you know you shouldn't -- no matter what OS you choose to use. There are dumb OpenBSD users just as there are smart Windows users.
I work in IT security and while malware will continue to plague us, the crafty stuff like phishing and pharming are getting more crafty and difficult to spot. You may tell yourselves that you'll never fall for something like phisphing or pharming and maybe you won't, but the vast majority of Internet users are susceptible anf gullible enough to click on something.
"Some time to come" translates into when Mac's have a big enough market share for malware developers to consider it worthwhile. When that occurs, they'll actually put forth serious, financially-driven effort into discovering flaws in Apple-branded OS offerings.
Remember, while you do have the malware that is purely destructive and just flat-out hates you, the vast majority of malware is developed for $$$.
So, if malware is a product designed to make the developer $$$, then the developer is going to go after the biggest market share that isn't filled up with too much competition.
Windows is still that market.
This is just another of those articles that claims Apple is safer, because it's less of a target.
It reads the new updated statistics about the problems of ms windows, and clichés it's way to declaring apple fairly safe.
this article does admit apple has security flaws, but does not extend it beyond that.
In short, the article doesn't do much to bring perspective, or depth to an already longwinded debate.
In my opinion, changing to apple because it's less of a target is comparable security through obscurity.
Real security comes through proper training of administrators and users. Real security does not come with the operating system
Blah blah sig blah blah blah irony blah blah
I want to say something totally obvious and have is posted on Slashdot too!
FreeBSD: The Power to Serve!
The user is the most infectious part of any system.
If a user has permissions to run any program he wants then malware will remain.
In a corporate environment, the users' rights should be such that unknown applications cannot run.
Home users don't have the same protections and must rely on virus checkers and spyware scanning to tell them that "this screensaver your mum sent you is infact a trojan which will send itself out to all your friends".
Windows, Linux, Mac, BSD are all susceptible to users' bad decisions.
(and the critical mass of malicious folks exist in Windows, but that could change quite quickly)
liqbase
When firefox came out, there werent any problems with it at all. Pops wouldnt happen as often. No 'ZOMG ACTIVEX WILL EAT YOUR FACE' or anything like that. But mostly because 95% of all people were using IE and firefox was about 2%. Now that firefox is more popular, people have found ways around it. Firefox is still great and they do a great job at patching it up (much better than IE). But the Macs are in the same boat. Its a small market right now, but as they get more popular, there will be viruses and exploits for it just like windows. The only argument is will they fix it faster than microsoft does?
RTFA! If you were using a MAC you woulda got 1st post, but since your WinBox was infected with malware it slowed your internet connection down.
I find it funny that apple wants to run windows alongside. They would be better off pushing wine to avoid all the local issues that Windows has.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
The script kiddie tools are available on Windows only.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
The article doesn't say that Macs are more secure than Windows. It only says that they are less targeted by malware. Two different things. Bad, Slashdot, Bad!
*Troll*
-Matt
Too bad that osx only runs on apples hardware and If thay thing that the only desktops thay going to make a $600 mac mini with pos video and a $1800 and up one with with 2 cpus and good video + slots is going to work. Thay need a mac with one cpu and good video + slots if thay want for more people to have macs.
True.
I think we'll never see mass-migration influenced by arguments like those on the article.
People has been saying that security is THE good argument for switching forever, be it Linux, Solaris, BSD or Mac folks, but this has never been a sufficient argument to fuel the switch.
Maybe what we need is not a system with better security and similar software suit. People will only change when we have a system with better security and SAME software suit (or at least one that has similar interface).
Most users are lazy, and they don't want to learn how to use new interfaces.
Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
I have messed with vista and they tried to do a MAC thing by making the system stop when you try and change something with the system and having you click continue to verify that you actually want it changed. Good idea, except that it prompts you on EVERYTHING. Change your screen saver? HALT..VERIFY. Want to check network connection setting? HALT...VERIFY. I think this will end up getting really annoying and people will disable it (like we did with the test of vista beta).
But I think people using Apple computers are the one with less technical knowledge, at least that was what the MAC was about (no?), to let "everyone else" use a computer. So, if there was a company creating malware for that computer now, with almost no "active protection" I believe they could get a nice perecentage of the userbase to fall into their claws.
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
!worthhacking != Secure
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/comic.php?d=20060 513
nuff said!
Saying that the most common malware only effects Windows, therefore Macs are more secure is simply bad reasoning.
What matters is rate of contact and rate of infection after contact.
A well configured Windows machine, with a good up-to-date virus/spyware scanner and firewall which prevents unauthorized registry changes is pretty hard to actually infect.
I'm sure that "out of the box" Macs are better. But it's not "out of the box" that I care about. My concern is level of security during actual operation.
I have no problem believing that Macs are more resistant to malware, but this measure doesn't show that to necessarily be the case.
Windows is more used than OS X (90% marketshare) and Microsoft is more hated than Apple -- of course Windows is going to be "more vulnerable"... because more people are going to target it! (Analogies: start your engines!) That's like saying "You're more likely to get shot in Chicago than SmalltownUSA" Well duh, because there are more people and more guns in Chicago than SmalltownUSA (Apple is SmalltownUSA if you couldn't figure that out). Apple's operating system has its flaws, Windows has its flaw, Linux has flaws -- security flaws will probably always exist (until the robots write our code for us... IN OUR OWN BLOOD) and as long as they are around, people will always try to exploit them. It's not wonder the top 10 malware pieces are for Windows considering Windows' HUGE marketshare (Analogy remix: wouldn't it be smart to pick out a particular bank to rob if it has 90% of the world's money?).
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing.
I don't get why it's recommending macs when there's a far easier, cheaper and more secure way to secure yourself from malware. When all you have to do is stick an Ubuntu CD into the drive, migrating away from Windows costs nothing - there's no point spending so much money on new hardware to run MacOS.
Microsoft is not hit so much because they are popular, they are hit because their whole development and security model is badly employed by others. How much software can run on a limited user account in Windows without any issue? OSX is far beyond them in this respect.
I've noticed that most of the people who advocate the popularity myth are not programmers. Whenever I have asked them just what they actually know about programming, I often get the usual populist bullshit "does that really matter?! Who do you think you are, elitist?"
How stupid do you have to be to believe that all designs are fundamentally the same? That's what the popularity model assumes. It assumes that OSX is more secure only because it hasn't had any scrutiny. Maybe so, but its flaws are its own. It might be worse than Windows, but if it is, it's because of OSX's design and implementation.
They said the same thing about Firefox but that's starting to change. Mozilla is fixing holes all the time and I'm starting to see ads that get through Adblock (stupid Mediaplex). This is just an article about security through obscurity - the best kind of security according to too many Apple fans I've talked to.
Faith in obscurity means you'll be totally unprepared when disaster strikes.
I actually emailed the beeb about this, yet another slippage in their understanding. They should lay off writing up the crappy 'entertainment' stuff and use the money saved to buy some tech writers.
"Sophos security said that the 10 most commonly found pieces of malicious software all targeted Windows machines."
--"most commonly found". as over 90% of desktops run windows, although corrent the statement has as much impact as saying "crashes between cars are the most common accident on the roads".
even if the infection rate across all machines was the same, that would still make the "most commonly found" all come out as windows.
Windows users are not?
"Anyone who is in "the industry" knows this. They just like to say the things people like to hear though..."
Geeks are the sexiest people on the planet!
This is the first time i see a story accurately tagged 'duh'
However, the BBC article linked to says:
Kinds of malware means categories - eg trojans, viruses, etc. That's absolutely not what the BBC article says.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
How much did apple pay to get this posted on slashdot?
Isn't Sober-Z just another email trojan - it seems to require the user double clicking on the attachment to run. No system is safe against trojans.
You can't hack an OS X system in 30 minutes? Granted, they were literally asking for it, but the point remains that it was hacked in a very short period of time, and you kind of have to question the security stuff there.
Personally, I'd say that it would make a lot more sense just to switch to Linux – not only does it work with your existing PC hardware, but it's also usually free or inexpensively-priced. And despite what a lot of people have claimed, it's really not very hard to install or use – as a distribution maintainer myself, I get a lot of e-mails, etc. from users, and most of the time if there are problems, they're usually either really small things after installation, almost never something that would render the whole system entirely unbootable. (A lot of my family and friends are using it now too, without any sort of problems, and considering that they were all Microsoft junkies for years it's not as insignificant as it may seem...) Obviously I may as well promote Ultima Linux here, but there are many others available – I'd stay away from Ubuntu, I've had some bad experiences with it myself*, but the hell with it, you have a choice, so you choose what's best for you.
Of course, if security's the number one priority and absolutely nothing else matters, the only way to go is OpenBSD... it's also pretty damn fast, too, even on a P-133/80MB laptop.
Having said all that, I do have to admit my iPod nano is the best thing since sliced bread...
*Tried it out in my spare time, mostly out of curiosity (I sometimes like playing around with other systems just for the hell of it)... among other things I've noticed: No wireless support, slow as hell, and it uses GNOME, which I can't stand. And don't even get me started on apt-get.
DISCLAIMER: Probably some bias in there, since I'm a distro maintainer myself. Take with a grain of salt...
Creative misinterpretation is your friend.
You are correct sir. However there is one other way it would happen. A major security disaster that really eats nearly everyone's data on the Windows platform in such a way that it can never be recovered and backups won't work because the fundamental OS itself is completely at the mercy of the cracker(s) who staged the attack. At that point, people won't want to use Windows and would be forced to move. Of course, something like that could never happen now, could it? ;)
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
What does it all mean? Sort this out for me, Slashdot.
1. Write malware for OSX 2. ??? 3. Profit!
"I've spent my whole life figuring out crazy ways to do things. It'll work." -- Montgomery Scott, "Relics"
I wonder what goes through the mind of the average person, when thinking about buying there next computer. Do they buy PCs because that is what they always have had, and it is what everyone they know has? Or is it a certain love for applications that aren't on macs. (surely not) Is it the salesmen in the stores, pushing pcs?
They're also easy to perceive as being "user friendly", stylish (if aesthetics matter to you), very versatile, and over-all are just more "welcoming" to those people who don't know a lot about computing in general and easily anthropomorph their PC's into something that "hates them" every time a program suffers from buggy construction.
My parents and an Aunt just bought themselves new computers - Dad got a 20" iMac, Mum got a 17" MacBook Pro (not a single problem with heat or "moo" yet), and Aunt picked a 13" MacBook (she hasn't said anything about problems yet either) - based on my recommendations and their experiences with Windows installs degrading overtime - seriously, barely touched PCs and Windows had to be re-installed at least once every six months, even with anti-spyware/virus and firewall software and hardware.
They bought them with a three-user licence of Windows XP as well - for those few programs that they use that aren't on Mac OS X - and are now quite happy doing a lot more on their computers, and watching a lot less television, than they were before.
Most of the time they're booted up into Mac OS X. Sometimes my Aunt uses Windows for when she's working on Family Tree's, and once Mum installed Mac:Office she stopped using MSN on Windows so it's already been left alone after two days. Dad doesn't know why he's got Windows, it just seemed like a good idea to him, and I'm getting him off of it slowly because seriously, he doesn't use his computer for anything that he can't do in Mac OS X; when he does need Windows though, it'll be there on another partition waiting to be used.
Macs are the best computer for the general consumer to buy today, whether it be a Mini, an iMac, or a MacBook (Pro or "Regular"), simply because the core OS that comes on them provides a good place for a "noob" to learn about the web, email, writing letters, making movies, playing with photography, simple programming, etc... and because of Mac OS X's overall design and default configuration (very important because no "noob" is going to first secure their PC when they unpack it) it is a secure place to play.
With the change to Intel CPU's they become even more useful across the broad spectrum of people using computers because suddenly that program that you had to use for work and couldn't change for something else cheaper or OSS can now be run on Windows... natively on a Mac; allowing you to "cool off" from Windows once in a while by rebooting and firing up iPhoto or iMovie, potter around with that masterpiece you're gonna release one day to rival The Big Lebowski, and then reboot and get back to work.
There was virtualisation software before but now Parallels and the Intel CPU switch has made Windows in Mac OS X even more practical, and now Windows can be run while enjoying some of that OS X security. You're firewalling Windows XP with Mac OS X! You, the noob, has his own UNIX firewall! Now how cool is that?
If you've got the cash and a looking for a good all-round computer, get a Mac. If you don't have the cash, save up and then buy a Mac. If you're a gamer... get whatever the hell you want because you're likely to have already set you're mind on something and anything else is just "bogus", and if you're a Linux/BSD geek like me, well... one day you may want a Mac and run Gentoo or something else on it, but I'm personally enjoying this use I have of my Dad's older iMac G5 and am seriously considering turning my Gentoo Desktop PC into a server and buying a MacBook Pro like Mum's for my main machine. :)
Te Quiero, Puta!
What really irritates me is people saying "Oh, Windows is more widely used then UNIX, so THAT's the only reason it's less secure." The fact is that a huge majority of servers run UNIX/Linux then Windows, and said UNIX servers are far more secure then Windows ones. (I speak from experience, as I administer both UNIX servers and Win2k3 ones.)
In other news, a team of scientists has collected a list of the 10 most common human illnesses, and has concluded that it's much safer to be an ant since they're invulnerable to them.
The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
Now every frickin time I want to run some executable I have to click "Yeah, ok, fine, do it".
Do you think I read the stupid dialogs? Nope. Not a chance.
Confirmation prompts are not security. They're just a CYA so you can tell the user "Well, we warned you".
Wow... Bleeding edge discovery by Sophos. Man... The stories are getting worse by the hour. If you are going to write/steal code that will inflict pain to users, do you write/steal it for the minority or majority? -Hex
The same was said millions of times about Firefox. Now, millions of people switched to Firefox, and Mozilla Dev Team release critical security updates more often than Microsoft for IE. Not because the MS is lazy to patch their browser, but because FF is even more buggy and door-open. We just "didn't know" it before, because only one dozen of people around the world used it back in 2004. Oh, and there is no ActiveX support. Call it a Microsoft peace of shiat, which you never want to use, BUT think if this is really a way. Removing features to be "secure" ? That is something like "Do not drive fast, and there will be no car disasters". Yes, we buy all those Benzes to drive 20MPH. Same goes for any Mac. People just don't know about it yet.
"Most users are lazy, and they don't want to learn how to use new interfaces."
As witnessed by the historic non-movement of users from DOS to Windows 3.1, or OS 9 to OSX
Install with the net and phone wires unplugged. Or, if you have the tech chops, install with the network wire plugged into a private secure network containing only a WSUS server and pull your updates right away.
I hate the whole concept of software that automatically "calls the mothership" anyway, but that's a different rant...
Well, yeah, but... Why would Sophos want people to switch? This is kinda ingenious marketing on their part, really. If by some fluke, lots of people switch to Macs, Windows' own antivirus/antispyware stuff won't be such a threat to the AV industry. And even if nobody switches, they are creating more fear in the hearts of Windows users ("Oh shit, I don't have a Mac, I better get some antivirus").
then the criminal networks will target Macs too. This isn't about the inherent security of the platform, it's about the market share of the platform.
For the time being, security is as good as the administrator of an OS X machine can make it. Granted there is a lack of spyware, malware, viral software, trojans, etc., but should the market share expand and OS X become a significant source of useful and possible compromisable data, the number of the aforementioned programs will increase.
I see the new advertising campaign for Apple as a double-edged sword. Advertise your product, emphasising it's out-of-the-box use and lack of spyware for the platform, while reminding any bored programmer that there is an entirely new operating system for him to exploit.
Security has not been an issue for me. Hardware bugs? That's left me a bit disgruntled.
Those who believe the Internet is private,
find their privates are on the Internet.
Social exploits like phishing and pay-forward scams still attack the gullible on any platform. Cross-site scripting exploits can still put web services such as PayPal and Amazon at risk. This has little to do with the platform, and I think many MacOSX fans are falsely smug over the whole thing.
...social exploits and cross site exploits don't depend on a your desktop OS being badly designed but I bet there still is a fair number of Windows users who envy the Mac zealots for not having to waste their time pruning Norton/Panda/Macaffee/etc... anti-malware suites with monotonous regularity never mind the endless nag screens these anti-malware suites throw at you. The very fact that Macs will remain an OS/Hardware package deal with a limited userbase for the forseeable future will limit the OS.X malware problem. Even so I'd still bet on a OS.X or Linux desktop OS'es as having fewer problems (not to be misread as 'no problems') with malware even if the same effort went into producing malware for those two OS'es as goes into the manufacture of Windows malware. This may of course change with Windows Vista but that remains to be seen.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
Least insightful comment in the whole article. I think many, maybe most, of the most successfull viruses / worms / trojans have been written and started mostly as a 'gee-whiz' thing or out of spite, not to make money. Taking the income out of it would go a long ways, but I think the most innovative (and thus, most successful) viruses etc. will generally come from black hats that aren't in it for the money.
Unpleasantries.
Sure, I can stick a CD in and boot a totally secure OS. It is also secure from easy to use, cheap software. I cannot load free or under $30 software in a few seconds and be up and running. How about the, under $100, full featured video editing software, and, every codec in the world that installs with no user intervenction in 10 seconds. Oh, and how about the $39 parenetal control software that monitors my kids' computers and reports their access to me that I set up in about 4 minutes. Let's talk about games. Oh, I forgot, those platforms don't have many like BF2, HL2, Guild Wars, etc...
Athiesm is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
No need to fill up the form to download the whitepaper. Just download it from the following URI: http://www.sophos.com/sophos/docs/eng/marketing_ma terial/SophosSecurityReport_2005.pdf
Just a trivial case of Google Hacking.
A nice "enter your root password to do this" prompt will not prevent stupid people from running malware on a Mac, especially if the malware says "enter your system password to install in secure mode" or something similar. Just because a system is inherently more secure does not mean stupid people can't screw it up.
With all the press about "Macs don't get viruses", your average user is likely to get a false sense of security when running things and might be more likely to try and run everything they run across, since it can't possibly do anything bad since they have a Mac.
Have you noticed that the guy with the glasses in the Mac vs. PC commerical looks like Bill gates and the hip unshaven guy looks like a young Steve Jobs? A little dig and a bit of payback from Steve?
Are you sure? I'm running 10.4 and I've never seen it do this. The nearest I can think of is when an app is updated and it asks to confirm whether or not you want to allow it access to the previous version's collection of shared passwords.
"Security firm Sophos Security has released a report claiming that Macs will be more secure than windows for some time to come. The report listed the 10 most common kinds of malware, and noted that they can only infect Windows systems."
Security form Sophist Security has released a report claiming that grass huts will be more secure than brick buildings for some time to come. The report listed the largest terrorist attacks in America, and noted that they all were performed against brick and mortar-style buildings. Residents in Louisiana are rebuilding their communities with only grass huts, since they're obviously more secure.
Exactly. Security in and of itself is generally not worth it to make a huge change like that. Security is only important if you can actually use the thing in the first place. Sure, we could switch to Macs, but then we wouldn't have any software that we needed to run our business. That's putting the cart before the horse.
While it's true that Macs have a better design, are easier to use, are safer and more resilient I suspect that once they become, if they become a larger segment of the market we'll see hundreds of security software companies crop up to fix marginal or non existent problems. We'll see real time spyware scanners and a bunch of new malware programs and endless churn of patches to fix things just because there is a 0.05% chance of it meaning anything. And then the experts will pile on chattering about all the things you should tweak and manage because COMPUTERS ARE DANGEROUS AND NONPRIESTS MUST BE TOLD HOW SCARY THEY ARE.
Color me cynical but I think a big part of the actual problem is the security software companies themselves. Not that they lie or that they create holes we need to fix but the perception that unless and until we manage 100% of everything in our systems realtime, heads down, apply every last patch that we're somehow going to skid off the infohighway into the pit of hell.
I've applied every last patch to WinXP ever told to me. And I can't say as there is any demonstrable benefit to doing so or that I'm better off other than thinking I'm better off. Maybe we need to rein in the security companies and tell them that quarterly or semiannual bulletins for 99% of the 'problems' is a better way to help us. Otherwise people are largely fixing nonbroken things and thinking it's accomplishing something.
I have gotten hacked on a Mac running MySQL. If you use MySQL along with CGI scripts, be sure to use a complex password and don't allow access to MySQL over the web. The CGI scripts only need local access.
And again you're making that assumption that computers are used primarly for business. Anyone who uses a computer for business has missed the point entirely. See my profile and you'll understand why.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
Come on, didn't everyone know that? I hate macs but I will concede that they are more secure than windows, but they've been that way since the dawn of time.
I mean, you can open windows easily with your hands but you need to use your teeth, a knife, or a big rock to open an apple!
disclaimer: I've been known to store numbers in my ass for which to dig out when quantities are required.
I'd imagine it's the first option, in the main. Computers are expensive purchases and no-one will take a risk with something totally unknown, unless they know what they're doing. For the average person, I'd imagine that Macs & Linux don't even register. They might think they're different versions of Windows. They won't know what an OS is.
Therefore, articles like this will only encourage switching in that section of users who understand the differences (and even then it might not succeed). Which, in my experience, is a tiny fraction of the general computer-using population.
the UI from Vista will make a lot of users cry out in agony.
An I think it'll prove you wrong. All you need is a little force, because users are lazy. They never will go through the hassle of installing XP because the Vista they got with their Dell is to hard to learn. Do the same with N*x + Gnome / KDE and people will make the switch eventually.
The problem is much smaller with the switch to OS X. And I know a lot of avarage Joes who are attracted to the shiny once they had heard from it.
Free beer is never free as in speech. Free speech is always free as in beer.
Is it just me or does the report actually fail to mention to mention Linux even once?
The actual whitepaper does not mention Mac or Linux even once. But somehow the article's summary on the sophos website automagically arrives at Mac being the right answer.
Not windows does not automatically mean Mac, does it?
Malware authors generally don't give a hoot about rooting your machine. They care about stealing your identity, taking your files hostage, and turning your PC into a spam zombie. Guess what? They don't need admin access for any of that. This limited user thing is a red herring.
And at this point, all PC OS designs are indeed fundamentally the same. My favorite analogy goes something like this: Saying that Unix/Linux/MacOS are by design more secure than Windows is like saying that people in Fargo are naturally more resistant to roadside bombs than people in Baghdad.
I cannot load free or under $30 software in a few seconds and be up and running.
You're talking about Linux/BSD there, right? Erm.. have you heard of a 'Package Manager'?
and, every codec in the world that installs with no user intervenction in 10 seconds
I have a LOT of porn from various different sources. It all plays fine in MPlayer. In fact, in my experience MPlayer generally works better than WMP.
Oh, and how about the $39 parenetal control software that monitors my kids' computers and reports their access to me that I set up in about 4 minutes.
How about the completely free Squid WWW Proxy which has optional filtering extensions and can be set up in well under 4 minutes?
If the average person could somehow switch without having to learn anything new, or do anything different from his normal routine, and it had no additional costs involved, people would do it. Many people don't see the long-term benefits of switching (security, etc) as outweighing the short-term costs (time to learn the new system, money, incompatibility, etc). For someone with a technical background, switching to a new interface / system and adjusting can be almost trivial (especially for the tasks that the average user would be doing), but there are tons of people who click on the blue E because it has the word "INTERNET" in it.
People also just don't like change, sometimes.
We use Sophos at our workplace. I also use other antivirus and antispyware - often to clean up the crap that Sophos doesn't find. Speaking as someone who's familiar with Sophos, I think it's curious that Sophos is telling home users to consider buying Macs. Go to Sophos' website (www.sophos.com) and try to find a home user product... They don't seem to promote any.
If I were a conspiracy theorist, I would think this is a warning shot aimed at Microsoft because of MS' sudden focus on security, to the detriment of companies such as Sophos; send Microsoft's small clientle to the enemy - it's no skin off of Sophos' corporate nose. As a PR exercise, Sophos otherwise just released a piece of fluff. They're talking to an audience that they don't serve or interact with.
In other news, reports indicate that future SUVs will continue suffer from poor fuel economy, future helicopters will continue to be noisy and future fried chicken will continue to be greasy.
Back to you, Ted.
RTFM; please, I beg you.
All my applications that I use are for Windows ... but wait, the Mac is more secure!
Help a man when he is in trouble and he will remember you when he is in trouble again.
So make the switch!
It has never been about what is easier or better, or even cheaper really... Remember, the reason Windows won was that everyone already had service contracts with IBM, so DOS won (in large businesses with IBM mainframes). Then they already had contracts with Microsoft, so they won. There really is not much more too it.
In my blog, I've been ranting about Apple's false sense of security and its advertising misrepresentations for a while now. Some of my recent posts which are very much on-topic here include these:
http://mikesalsbury.com/mambo/content/view/385/
http://mikesalsbury.com/mambo/content/view/401/
http://mikesalsbury.com/mambo/content/view/494/
http://mikesalsbury.com/mambo/content/view/13/
I think it's just a matter of time until the big bright bullseye Apple is painting on itself and its users becomes some malware coder's primary target. Hopefully they'll be ready when that day comes, but I have a feeling it's going to come as a very rude surprise.
As David Coursey said last year in his article "When Will Apple Grow Up?":s p?kc=EWRSS03129TX1K0000611
"...because of its small market share and low enterprise presence, Apple can release software that really needed better, and more public, testing almost with impunity. This is further proof that Apple isn't willing to do what's necessary to become an enterprise player--and customers reward that behavior by staying away, in droves." http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1813718,00.a
"Most users are lazy, and they don't want to learn how to use new interfaces."
As witnessed by the historic non-movement of users from DOS to Windows 3.1, or OS 9 to OSX
Except that in those instances, they were not given a choice. Those users, when they went to buy a new computer, no longer had the option of buying an Intel PC without Windows, or of buying a Mac without OSX.
Apparrently, only the complete elimination of Windows as an option will force people to switch to another OS.
Nothing to see here
Existing software, compatibility with work environment, what your friends have, existing periphals and what you know. Until the Mac can overcome all of that it's a tough row to hoe.
When buying a new computer most consumer want to re-use some of their software (games, financial programs (e.g., Quicken, MS Money, and maybe productivity software). Even if the Mac has an equivalent program, the added expense of re-buying stuff that you already own pushes up the mac cost. Also, many large companies have licenses that allow for home use of MS Office suite... on the Mac this will add another $100 to the cost.
Consumers may also want to recycle their existing printer, scanner, camera and may be concerned (rightly or wrongly) that it willn't work with the Mac.
Finally, there is a learning curve with the Mac...things work differently... maybe better, but different.
1) Apple can now launch their "THINK SIMILAR(LY)" campaign, where they encourage Windows users to stay the hell away, thus maintaining OS X's status as a relatively obscure and therefore unattractive target.
2) ???
3) (lack of) Profit!
Well, there are people in the IT industry, who keep up to date with technology, study new ideas, learn from security mistakes that others in the industry have made etc., and then there are people who got hired to run windows servers because they were the best in the office at running scandisk, and had the time to do a certification. This kind of article is aimed at educating those who SHOULD know better if they are paid to do a sysadmin job, but don't.
What goes through my mind when I buy a computer:
1. Exactly hat kind of computer do I need to fill the task at hand? Would a laptop, a desktop, or perhaps a workstation be the best fit? How much RAM, how many processors and how fast do they need to be, what's my budget, etc.
2. Once I know what kind of machine I need, then I look at prices and capabilities of different units. I tend to build my own but compare the prices on parts to OEMs to see what's the better deal.
3. Then I find an appropriate Linux distribution for the architecture and hardware and install it on the new machine.
Since I run Linux and almost all of my applications are gotten as source and compiled, whether I use an x86, PowerPC, SPARC, MIPS, or Itanium box is pretty much inconsequential. I tend to get x86 (lately x86_64) machines as they are less expensive and more powerful than the other arches except for larger servers. Often, it is very hard to find anything but x86 machines in the desktop/laptop/workstation segment except for the occasional overpriced Macintosh PowerPC unit or the woefully underpowered Pegasos PPC unit. That's why I get x86 "PCs" and probably why most of you here do- although I probably have more leeway in picking a less-common arch as my software runs on it while most peoples' software is 32-bit x86 only.
Just "gittin-r-done," day after day.
I comprised a list of the top 10 Mac viruses.
After much testing and analysis, I discovered none of them worked on Windows
Therefore I advise all Mac users to switch to Windows.
The usual reply here is that macs are only immune for now due to low market share. While I could place some stock in that argument, it becomes very difficult to get it to hold water when you take a realistic look at the current condition of the Macintosh. Market share is what, triple that of two years ago? There are a lot of people using both mac and windows. The market share does not have to be dominant like MS to attract attacks, it just needs to be high enough profile to get your name in lights. Tell me a successful mac virus right now wouldn't be front page news all over the place? The opportunity/reward is there, and it's really a big, juicy, tempting target. The fact that it has not sustained a single successful attack under these conditions is a very strong statement as to the security of the system.
By contrast, would anyone really care very much if there were another major security hole found in Windows today? Sure, everyone would be scrambling for patches etc but really would it be news? Would it be big? Would it attract serious attention? No, not really, not anymore. It would have been big news if it was the first major issue in say, a year, but this is just the issue of the month. *yawn*
So I believe it's fair to say the argument of low market share is the true reason Macintoshes appear secure is fantasy. If there were exploits easily found as in Windows, we'd be seeing them by now. Some people just need to open their eyes and embrace reality.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Well that is exactly why Mac OS and linux will stay more secure for some time...
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
Somebody needs to start making Switch ads that appeal to malware designers... "Make the Switch! Because everybody thinks they're safe..."
In Soviet Russia these Soviet Russia jokes aren't considered the least bit amusing...
Certainly starts with the OS.
/are more/ of a target. The only thing that we know is that Windows is insecure. Many people make the mistake of assuming that when Macs become more popular they will be just as insecure as Windows has been _proven_ to be. The only proof we have is that Macs, however popular, are more secure than Windows.
The argument that Macs are more secure because they are less of a target does not imply that they will be less secure when they
What Windows does not have going for it is that the company that build it never took security seriously when it really mattered. This was back in the 90's when the fundamental security models and user mindset was being established. Microsoft shot themselves in the head back then and has never recovered.
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
I've come to the conclusion that the biggest reason for why the Mac is a more secure platform isn't because of technology, but because the Mac userbase tends to be a lot more savvy than the Windows userbase.
I'd hazard a guess that the vast majority of Windows malware comes not from the inherent insecurity of the Windows platform but from users doing dumb things. Someone who installs some stupid little weather applet and gets infected with spyware got infected not because of a flaw in the system, but because they didn't bother to determine whether or not the source of their software was credible or not. Even if they got a prompt like Vista and OS X present they'll still authorize the program. There's no patch that can be applied to a system to prevent stupid users from mucking it up.
John Gruber wrote a really astute article on why Macs don't have the level of malware that one would think they would. If Apple has roughlt 5% marketshare, why isn't 5% of the total malware population targeting Macs? I think he's right when he notes:
Macs are more secure because Mac users have a much tougher stance towards crapware. Mac users tend to be much more technically proficient than the average. If that "zero-tolerance" policy changes, I'm not so sure we'll see an increase in the amount of malware targeting Macs.
OS X does a great job of providing technical barriers against malware, but nothing can prevent malware that uses social engineering to do its work. Mac users are safer because they choose to be - but if you get a group of users who have no awareness of security and will blindly execute anything they come across, even if the system specifically tells them not to, that could change very quickly.
I wonder what goes through the mind of the average person, when thinking about buying there next computer. Do they buy PCs because that is what they always have had, and it is what everyone they know has? Or is it a certain love for applications that aren't on macs. (surely not) Is it the salesmen in the stores, pushing pcs?
What do you mean "surely not"? Can I run City of Heroes/Villains or DDO natively on an Apple machine IN OS/X (NOT in Windows dual-booted, and NOT in VirtualPC/VMWare/Other Emulation Software)?
Yes, these are games however there are MANY other people out there with OTHER requirements for which there simply isn't another option as far as the OS goes.
If things have continued in the computer retail space (from the time I was involved in it), the salesmen push whatever they have the most 'training' on. When I worked for Best Buy in the late '90's, that training was limited, and I don't recall it ever involving anything Apple related. Those machines sat on the shelf and sold only when a customer came in that already knew they wanted said hardware. I have a feeling that was one of the reasons the space was eventually re-purposed.
bork bork bork!
In a word, horse shit (okay, that's actually two words).
Better design has nothing to do with it. The number one reason why the Mac is currently more secure than Windows is because the Mac is not on the radar of virus and malware authors.
It works the same way as it works with graffiti. A friend has a large garage that is always getting "tagged" with graffiti. I also have a large garage, but it never has a graffiti problem. Why? Because my friend lives in the city, and I live in the middle of nowhere in the country. Graffiti creators are not going to waste time on my garage because *no one will ever see it*.
Let's pretend you are a virus or malware author. You want fame in your circles. Who are you going to concentrate on...the guys with 4 percent of the market, or the guys with 95 percent of the market? Duh!
Its a lot like how unpopular cars are not the ones in the top-ten lists for most stolen vehicles.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
Hmm... reminds me of Pluto's Kiss.
During actual operation is when Windows fails compared to competitors.
This is just PR. Plain and simple. The world churns on. And how is this news???
Or you can just turn the computer off if you can't keep it secure.
I wonder what goes through the mind of the average person, when thinking about buying there next computer. Do they buy PCs because that is what they always have had, and it is what everyone they know has? Or is it a certain love for applications that aren't on macs. (surely not) Is it the salesmen in the stores, pushing pcs?
Had you considered the possibility that we might actually prefer Windows, or even think it's better?
I'm perfectly serious here. I'm not clueless or an idiot; I probably know more about computers than most people here. I've used Macs and various Linices extensively, and I consider myself skilled with both. But I still use Windows for my primary computer, because I just happen to find it a pleasanter environment. I can get stuff done faster in Windows. It does what I want, the way I want to do it. That's why.
Why not use Linux? Because Linux GUIs have always struck me as clunky and fragile, and there's no useful Linux software that I can't run either in Cygwin or remotely over an ssh tunnel to a Debian system. Meanwhile, much of the software I do need -- notably professional graphics applications -- is not available for Linux at all. (GIMP and Inkscape are fine for web design, but they don't even try to do print.)
Why not use a Mac? Primarily because I don't see any point in paying extra for a proprietary and incompatible system that doesn't offer me anything significant over a PC. Also, the Mac interface is an abomination. A hodgepodge of totally different (but equally hideous) skins, blurry fonts, and whizz-bang effects that do nothing but slow down any attempt at serious work. And the dock? Seriously, what were they smoking? I've seen hardened Apple fanatics break down in tears because they can't figure out how the dock is supposed to work. Apple stopped doing intuitive when they retired OS 9. I'm surprised more people haven't noticed yet.
And what about security? I'm not worried. A hardware firewall, coupled with basic precautions like not using IE, not opening random email attachments, and not browsing Russian porn/warez sites, keeps me perfectly secure. I haven't been hit by a single virus, worm, or piece of spyware in my entire life, and I see no reason to suppose that's about to change.
So that's why my next computer will be another Windows PC. Sorry if my failure to subscribe to Slashdot groupthink offends you.
Don't put your PC on the Net, Mrs. Worthington... put it behind NAT and keep it there. You still need to watch out for website attacks (dump IE6, use Firefox with NoScript and AdBlockPlus), but you will suffer no more direct attacks. Even the cheapest wireless router is a good start, as long as you change the passwords.
Oh, and when BitTorrent don't work, and the docs tell you to set up Port Forwarding, that's your warning to not use BitTorrent (or Direct Connect, or anything else that leaves known ports permanently open to the Internet). It's not paranoia when they really are out to get you! 8-/
(this is not a
Your reasoning is a virus of bad logic that needs to be erradicated from Internet forums.
/are more/ of a target. The only thing that we know is that Windows is insecure. Many people make the mistake of assuming that when Macs become more popular they will be just as insecure as Windows has been _proven_ to be. The only proof we have is that Macs, however popular, are more secure than Windows.
/less/ secure OS than MS. But I would'nt bet on it as it is counter to all the evidence we actually do have.
The argument that Macs are more secure because they are less of a target does not imply that they will be less secure when they
Windows has been proven to be trivially exploited for a decade now. There is a massive army of infected Windows zombies that pile onto any fresh system that connects to the Internet. This is a problem that Microsoft created by being jackasses about security back in the 90's. Apple has reinvented itself with an OS based on proven security models. Every OS has problems but all OS's are not equal.
It may turn out that Apple has an even
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
Which genius got paid thousands of dollars to come up with THAT conclusion?
Statements like this really irritate me "Switch to MAC, it's more secure" - the reason MAC's are more secure is because Windows has a much larger install base. Once enough people switch to MAC's..then MAC's would also become a bigger target.
I have a MAC mini - it's my primary desktop, but I don't for one minute think that it's more "secure" just because it's "different then windows".
After all, Electronic voting machines are "different" too.
QuickBooks Pro v6 is the killer app for businesses. Small business can't live without it, their CPAs and bookkeepers use nothing else, our auditor FORBID us from using anything else. The kicker is, while Intuit sells QB6 for the Mac, that version does not have payroll! So you use XP to run the XP-only QB6.
And here's the lovely problem, unless you're a rocket scientist, QB6 runs only in full admin, not even as a power user. And it has to be connected to the internet to validate with the MotherShip. So you're royally dunked.
The other little nasty is that although you can run XP as a Limited User Account, it doesn't matter. As LUA XP still downloads all the updates and virii but can't install them. When you shut down your computer, as part of the final close, XP switches back to admin and switches off the firewalls all by itself and installs all the shit.
What a design. Windows is something to tinker with, the Mac is something you use. I admin Win for my employers, I use the Mac for my business.
But saying that Mac's are more secure then PC's is incorrect, period!
These kinds of headlines have to start saying that OSX is more secure then Windows. Its the software running on Mac's which is the important factor, not the hardware itself.
There is a culture of people now that are only buying Mac's (hardware) because they can run Windows (software). I am sure there will be those brain dead people that will assume that the Mac (hardware platform) is more secure for running Windows (software platform), and they will be misguided by these statements.
Regardless of whether you believe OSX is more secure the Windows, the fact is that Mac's are not more stable then PC's, especially when Mac's these days are PC clones and people only want them so they can run Windows on them. Running Windows on a Mac, without proper precautions opens you up to the same security problems as a PC running Windows.
Mac = Hardware
PC = Hardware
OSX = Software
Windows = Software
Mac = PC
Therefore, its the software which matters. Do the math.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
I think you've nailed it, 1, 2, 3.
Social inertia, the biggest detriment to any kind of progress.
Gamers, and those who "need" MS Office (and don't realize it's available for Mac) probably cover 95% of this segment.
Go into your local big-box retailer and just try to find a Mac. If they have any, they hide them in the corner, while the PCs take center stage with flashy game demos running on them. The main exception to this rule around here (Vancouver, BC) is London Drugs, where Macs are given prime positioning.
Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
Anyone in the industry also knows that a lot of issues with windows and malware are symtopms of the large user base and the general lack of technical skill among that user base.
I guarantee that if MacOSX gains a large chunk of the operating system market share it too will have it's share of malware. The problem isn't with the operating system, it's with the users. One can only do so much to protect users without getting in their way.
Just because MacOSX requires a user to enter their password before installing software doesn't mean that Joe Bloggs won't install malware in an attempt to see naked pictures of paris hilton.
Education of the user is the only way to solve security issues. Everything else is just duct tape.
How many users do you know that:
* Don't know that other people can read their email if they don't use encryption
* Write their password down and stick it under their keyboard
* Don't know how to identify if a website/email is from a company that it claims to be from
* Still open random attachments to emails(Most of the recent viruses have been attachments to emails)
etc.
- Jesse McNelis
...and that is all I have to say about that.
http://jessta.id.au
This article is targetting Malware, and looking at the most common malware. There are thus three factors that malware writers rely on.
1. What they want. Are they doing pop ups, are they trying to get known, are they trying out a neat bug. 1 wants a wide spread dispersal, the other two are scaled system for the most part. If you're trying to get known as a virus writer your going to write a virus on a large scale, if you want to get known for writing a unique virus, you'll write it in a "labratory" idea, where the virus shouldn't leave a small network.
2. How can they get it. I'll just focus on wide spread dispersal, because the other forms of distribution actually wouldn't matter here, since we are talking about common malware. For wide spread dispersal we want the largest amount of people to have the virus. Considering that 90 percent of people use Windows, and most use 2000 or XP, you'd focus on making it work on that. You'll focus on IE, not firefox, since IE still holds 80-90 percent of the browser market, you'll focus on Outlook because it has more known exploits and less technically incline people use it (over other email clients, not that all Outlook users are fools, but users who are fools will use Outlook).
3. What tools they have to gain it. So assume we arn't looking at wide spread dispersal, then let's assume you want to write a program X, that can be written on a PC or a Mac. You own a PC (likely) so instead of going out and buying a Macintosh for 2,000 dollars or getting a used one, you're going to use the PC you already own. If 90 percent of the world has a PC, then the person who is going to have a chip on his shoulder isn't going to likely own a Mac. There are bad people who have Macs, but then again their work doesn't spread as far, and they arn't likely trying to get huge amounts of pop ups on people. I'm sure there's a slight focus there but then again Macs use Safari for browsing not IE, so pop ups are a bit different to set up.
This is the same BS that people are talking about with Firefox. Firefox isn't necessarily safer than IE. Firefox isn't targetted as much as IE. If ever moron with a computer went out and bought a mac, with in a year we'd see a huge breeding ground for virii. Yes there's safety and security that the user has in OSX, that's the same safety and security we had in 2000 and XP. Same security as the Admin who runs day to day Linux from root.
It's the same security that the average computer user will get around, ignore, or just forget about after the first month of using their computer. They will likely disable it or find it to much of a hassle, or something, and somehow it'll slowly disolve away.
Microsoft doesn't write software for Malware to breed on. Microsoft writes software to make it easier for the consumer and application programmer to interface in a little thing called an executable. The fact Malware is an application is just something that really wasn't a problem back when XP was getting into final production, but it is. However it's similar to a safe, if you want to protect something, create a safe, lock your items in it along with the key. That would protect your items but it'll make it hidden from everyone except the perfect safecracker. The cost for such a safe would likely be astronomical because to make it unable to be cracked would take a lot. However how many people would want to lock their favorite hat up that way, or a magazine they just got in the mail?
It's the same with the computers. The more hassles that we have to go through to get a program through security is just another step to making the user not want to use that computer. Personally I'm moving away from computers already to consoles for my gaming for ease of use, how much farther will I go?
Agree with you, you can never stop Kevin Mitnick by switching to Mac. But at least we can enjoy a malware free time for 1 or 2 years by switching to Mac. That's enough IMHO. Then we can switch to Linux if desktop linux is good enough.
BTW, offtopic, is Kevin Mitnick driving a Lexus with a "HACKER" tag? I saw one recently, and a man with curly hair was driving it.
There is a spark in every single flame bait point.
1. Who the fuck cares, we're talking about consumers not nerds who want to tell a tech forum they use linux
2. Is this supposed to be dick waving, if it is you waving it in another direction, like toward a vagina.
Computers are primarily (ab)used for business, even if they are missing the point.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
A few years ago, I bought my first Windows PC for much the same reasons, after years of loyalty to the Mac. The Windows and Mac versions of Adobe Illustrator, the one application I cannot live without, are so close that they are practically identical, even down to eqivalent keyboard shortcuts (substitute control for command and alt for option, and you're in business).
The Windows GUI is in many cases better than the Mac. Furthermore, x86 hardware is less expensive and more easily customized/repaired than the equivalent Mac hardware.
I'm echoing a couple of other folks here, but I wanted to chime in myself with a little story to illustrate. If you really care about safety, get an education. A good A/V program and firewall are a good start - but to believe for one second that any amount of software can protect you is just being naive. The best A/V and anti-spyware cannot DO everything and as a bonus, they are only as good as the person that updates them (or the person responsible for the update). What's worse, is thanks to the media, most of these tools incorrectly identify "thousands of infections" (fear only works through numbers - if a product finds ONE legitimate malware, it CAN'T be as good as one that finds THOUSANDS, RIGHT????) by identifying cookies for Pete's sake. The fact remains that a little education, and a bit of lifestyle change goes a LONG way. Drop IE (I'm an Opera user - yes, I know I know - let the Firefox arrows fly). Drop the Outlook evilness (again, I'll buck the trend - I use The Bat! and I love it). If you don't want the hole in the roof to get bigger, don't leave the little hole in disrepair, right? Fact of the matter is, I've managed to be malware and virus free for going on 10 years now by simple education. I don't even use a firewall or realtime A/V OR spyware tools. I do a 'system level' A/V test on boot up, keep my A/V defs up to date - and I let Windows Firewall run. A couple of times a year, I'll get the "flavor of the month" anti-malware package, spyware package and run it just to ensure I'm clean. Then I promptly uninstall it. I've educated my wife and children about internet security. On their boxes, the A/V runs resident. My wife uses Internet Explorer because of some very poorly written sites she must visit. I got my kid on Opera. Zero infections. In fact, education works so well - I have a story to tell about it. A family friend and her kid came over to visit - all their stuff was in storage (getting ready to move) and they needed some computer time on the 'net to do some homework, check email, etc. No problem - terminals all over the house - pick one and go. The kid got on my wife's computer. Within FIVE MINUTES, the computer was infected. To this day, I don't know what she did - but it was LOADED with crap. The other terminals were off aside from mine - and I saw the infection try to hit my box, disabled sharing to my wife's computer, and ran in to stop what was going on. Five minutes, folks. That's all it took a squeaky clean system to become unbelievably infected. I can only imagine what their own computers look like. Took me HOURS to get it cleaned off (as I said - software can only do so much - if you don't get EVERYTHING before the next reboot, it all comes back - enjoy!). I'm sure everyone has a story like this. "I had a family member that was infected DAILY with tons of crap, changed them to Opera|Firefox|whatever and The Bat|Thunderbird|whatever and I've never had another call from them". You just can't argue with success stories like that. Sure, if you changed them to OSX or Redhat, you might have the same success story. But in this case, they didn't lose anything they used everyday (except that crappy browser and horrible email client), they learned a valuable lesson - and in many cases, come back to tell you how much BETTER the browser/client is than the horrible crap they were using (Opera's screen zooming alone makes it completely indispensible for people at super high resolutions - I'm at 180% as I write this). Until people understand the nature of evil, they cannot hope to combat it. You can install multiple A/V tools, spyware killers, the whole lot (and incorrectly feel safe about it - making you even MORE susceptible to attack) or you can get a little education, make a couple of small changes and really protect yourself. As Smokey the Bear says|said: "Only YOU ..."
Most users are lazy, and they don't want to learn how to use new interfaces.
Well... We'd better not tell them about the Windows/Office Vista menu changes then.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
That's phunny. It certainly was entertaining. *snicker*
Hahaha! Hahaha! Hahaha! Hahaha! Hahaha! Hahaha! Hahaha! Hahaha! Hahaha! Hahaha! Hahaha! Hahaha!
Sorry. I can't contain myself.
One reason to aim at a smaller market is to take advantage of knowledge you may have about that market. If you knew that BigCorp had some data you wanted, and that BigCorp had switched to OS X, you'd attack them using OS X vulnerabilities. If you knew that BigCorp used multiple platforms, you'd attack them using cross-platform strategies like fake websites.
I work at NASA. We've been hit with several spear-phishing attacks recently - broadcast emails telling us our NASA Credit Union accounts had been compromised, with a convenient link for logging in and changing our passwords. A broadcast attack aimed solely at Windows wouldn't work very well here - too many people with Macs and Linux boxes on their desks.
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
I don't think you've not subscribed to the Slashdot "group think" since there is no such thing to subscribe (or not) to. From the sound of it you are in a niche market (professional graphics work) and probably more technically able than most graphic designers (hence your choice of Windows). But you are apparently not really into technology for what it can do overall. You're only into what it can do for your specific task. Considering that most graphic designers don't know much about networking, scripting or coding, they tend to prefer the Mac. Again, it doesn't sound like you're quite down at that level (not to disparage graphic designers, but the best of the lot rarely have any technical ability at all. They simply have great eyes and know how to use their apps).
.Net devel suite on your box and have downloaded the Windows source code via P2P to get things tuned right...). These failings don't really make either OS "bad" per se. But there are some simple facts to take into account:
For me... it's all about "free" in both senses of the word. I exclusively use Linux at home for everything. There are tons of applications that do everything I need. Since I don't need to go to print with my graphic work, GIMP works fine for me. As does GIMPrint for printing out family photos and the like. When it comes to the professional audio and video work I do, GIMP is leaps and bounds ahead of what the Windows platform provides and way cheaper than most decent Mac solutions. The amount of time spent getting mys systems configured (from source typically as I despise pre-packaged software) is not any greater than the amount of time I spent tweaking my Windows systems when I used that OS in the past. This is because for many of us, we like to get every ounce of performance out of our hardware and no matter what OS or platform we're on, we're going to investigate EVERY option all the way down to the code itself. Linux is not hard and the GUIs are much more polished and feature filled than anything that the Windows platform offers. But yes, you do have to spend some time learning the new approaches. I did and it was worth every second.
It still an argument that's stupid and pointless though. It's not about "Good OS" vs. "Bad OS". It's about a "Good for Me OS" vs. a Bad for Me OS". For me, Windows is too limiting and far too expensive when you factor in how much you have to spend on extra apps to actually make it useful. For you the GUI options on Linux didn't suit you, likely due to the learning curve and possibly due to the time you tried it (Development is moving fast and both GNOME and KDE are far better than the Explorer interface in my opinion). Linux also failed you in that you probably aren't the kind of person who likes to work all the way down to the metal to get the most out of your machine (again, not an insult just a basic fact based on what you posted. I don't know, so I can't say 100% that this is true. You might have the
1. I used Windows all the way from DOS/Win3.1 to XP and I only got hit with one exploit through a stupid move (putting my XP laptop directly on a DSL link in an emergency with no firewall at all Pre-SP2). I found that putting my Windows boxes behind a decent firewall (typically linux based) stopped a whole host of problems. Even without EVER using any antivirus software (I simply avoided Internet Explorer and any version of Outlook).
2. Nearly every Linux distro I've used has come with everything I've needed at a basic level and the only extras I ever install are typically because of my interests in the rarer fields of computing. Linux is certainly more complete when compared to Mac or Windows, but that's only if you're willing to put the time into learning it.
So there you have it. I hope you can see the wisdom in this piece and take no offense as none was meant.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
Then you have people with little kids who like to play games, you can't exactly pop in the disc and it automatically installs the game like on a windows machine (if it will even install at all), for most people a computer is a computer, only the names are different, so they don't know anything about system requirments, With macs not being cheap by any means it wouldn't suprise me to hear a number of them are returned for simply not working being the majority of the complaints.
Sure they can go on and on and on about how it's more secure, but a story will come along not to long saying some website's encryption was cracked and lots of user data was stolen. It doesn't really seem to matter what OS you are using, aslong as assholes who think it's cool to create malware, spyware, viruses and so on exsist it will always be there and whatever the most dominant OS is that will be the main target. Sure Macs are safe for now because how big is their market share? 5%? 10%? Linux has even lower while Microsoft controlls the remaining %, so naturally people are going to target it cause it has the most impact.
Just like when someone robs a place, Macs and others are like Banks, they have tighter securty but there is a bigger payoff (by being able to say you were the one that broke it) but Windows is like the little shop on the coner, there's a whole lot more of them and they have cash right there in front of you and are lacking in security. So naturally you are going to take the easier place to rob...especially when you act like a 12 year old who thinks you are "1337" because you ran a script.
Computers are expensive purchases and no-one will take a risk with something totally unknown, unless they know what they're doing.
$499 isn't that exspensive compared to other products (car stereo, console gaming, tvs and so on) and chances are the average Joe just buys a computer based off what his kids, family members, or the store clerk tells him to.
From my experience, people who buy macs as their first computer did it because of family members that already had macs or they use macs at their college or work. But I've seen plenty of switchers of people who were fed up with spyware and other issues.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
The biggest thing that everyone seems to forget is what comes preloaded on most PC's. That's right and since Apple has such a small share of the market (loyal following though it may be) many folks don't even think about OS-X as an alternative simply because it isn't in their face.
Because of this, it's going to take Apple/*nix lots of effort or a major PC vendor such as Dell to offer the alternative OS on their primary web site for the message to reach enough of the masses to start having an impact on buying decisions.
Yep!
At least until Microsoft X is released.
Maybe they will cal it Windows MX, the new BSD based OS
with a custom windows window manager.
Yes I beleive Microsft management will wise up and basically
use there assets to revamp Apples product.
As a matter of fact doesn't Microsoft own a percentage of Apple?
I found this on the Ask Metafilter:
From Apple's 2003 SEC filing:
"In August 1997, the Company and Microsoft Corporation (Microsoft) entered into patent cross license and technology agreements. In addition, Microsoft purchased 150,000 shares of Apple Series A nonvoting convertible preferred stock ("preferred stock") for $150 million. These shares were convertible by Microsoft after August 5, 2000, into shares of the Company's common stock at a conversion price of $8.25 per share. During 2000, 74,250 shares of preferred stock were converted to 9 million shares of the Company's common stock. During 2001, the remaining 75,750 preferred shares were converted into 9.2 million shares of the Company's common stock."
http://ask.metafilter.com/mefi/30833
Also, many large companies have licenses that allow for home use of MS Office suite... on the Mac this will add another $100 to the cost.
MS do make a mac version of Office you know and AFAIK it can still be used at home like the windows one if your company has a select agreement (or whatever vol discount name it is called nowadays).
'By the pricking of my thumbs, something wicked this way comes'
...you're saying the most common malware is only found on the most common platform? Wow. That's quite an insight.
http://news.com.com/2100-1002_3-6046197.html Pretty sure macs have their fair share of security holes, they just havent been widely exploited yet.
Likewise, the C64 is more secure than Macs.
Initially IRTA "Want Security? Make A Sandwich", which baffled me no end.
Do you see what I did there?
Low market share is not the only reason Macs are safer. Note I did not say invulnerable, I said safer. Nor did I deny that low market share is helpful. Microsoft is making a huge marketing push with the architectural changes in Windows Vista that are supposed improve security. Chief among these is User Account Control. This will be an important improvement for Windows, since malware can too easily take control of the system. Of course, *nix systems have had this for ages, and the Mac OS has thus had it for years now. If User Account Control is an important security step for Windows, as it is, then one should not dismiss the advantages of the Macs architecture right now. Case in point: the Sony root kit fiasco. Unaware Windows users could get infected with this simply by inserting one of the Sony CD containing the software. On the Mac version of the rookit, users had to double-click on the installer app to run it and then enter an administrative password to install it. That is not a false sense of security. That is real. People have been talking about the malware coders going after the Mac for quite some time now. There of course will be vulerabilities that emerge and get patched, but don't hold your breath waiting for some big virus that is going to take down Macs across the net. Suppose you are completely right, however. Windows systems are battle-hardened, well-armored warriors while Mac systems are naive little kids in t-shirts. The difference is only that the Windows warriors are patrolling Fallujah and the Mac kiddies are playing in their comfortable suburban backyards. The Mac kiddies are still "safer" even if more vulnerable.
I'm perfectly serious here. I'm not clueless or an idiot; I probably know more about computers than most people here. I've used Macs and various Linices extensively, and I consider myself skilled with both. But I still use Windows for my primary computer, because I just happen to find it a pleasanter environment. I can get stuff done faster in Windows. It does what I want, the way I want to do it. That's why.
Does anyone else object to the word pleasanter? I much prefer the proper Queens English version of 'More Pleasant'
**Gets ready for the stream of abuse that is sure to come**
'By the pricking of my thumbs, something wicked this way comes'
And what exactly do sophos thinks will happen when macs hold the share of computer users? Ohhhh the virus writers will focus on macs you say? Wow I'm totaly shocked.
Sorry - I just had to say that you're right, and that's probably one of the best comments I've seen here on /.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Why would one have to bother infecting a Mac with something? They already suck. (some things of them are good, but personally I hate them.)
If you lock down your system, don't install software from untrusted sources and don't browse the web with admin rights, windows is a good compromise between security and usability. On the other hand, if you always run as admin, install every free (or non-free) crapware and use the same machine for logging in your bank account, I don't see how a change in a technicality (the OS) is going to help you from being exploited.
A) availability: Most retailers don't carry Macs. Especially now that Apple has its own retail stores. Apple is now a competitor. And Apple has very strict limits on what prices 3rd party vendors can sell their computers for. That's why you never see a (new) Mac sold anywhere for more $5 less than Apple's own price.
B) price: You pay more for the Apple name. Yes, you also pay more because the cost of the PC is partially subsidized by promotional software, some of which may or may not be useful. In any event, for $500, which would you want? A Mac mini that doesn't even come with a DVD burner, keyboard, mouse, or monitor? Or would you rather have an Athlon64-based system with a DVD burner, keyboard, mouse, and everything you need and probably even a 15"-17" LCD monitor thrown in?
C) compatibility: You can't even buy a printer that doesn't work with Windows. It's not hard to find one that doesn't work with Mac. It's nice to know that whatever you buy will just work. Printers are a big problem here in that some printer drivers only work with certain point releases of Mac OS X. Others work, but are 10 times slower than on Windows (I offer up my Brother MFC-3820CN as proof of this). And multifunctions/all-in-ones may not have all functionality available on Mac.
D) upgradeability: Unless you're talking about a PowerMac G5, Macs have no internal expandability. What are you supposed to do if your computing needs change? Pay Apple to do the upgrade for you? You can't even install memory in a Mac mini without special expertise! Forget about upgrading an optical drive or a hard drive. How about upgrading the onboard video to something more current? Not even a remote possibility in a Mac because there are no expansion slots!
E) people like freedom: With a PC, you have your choice of manufacturer, a greater choice of options (both BTO and aftermarket), and the knowledge that you probably know someone who is good with PCs. And if you don't, any computer place (other than the Apple Store, naturally) can service it for you.
Consumers aren't dumb. Don't let your anti-Microsoft bias get in the way of seeing that PCs have very real practical advantages over Macs. I gather a lot of people will have the experience (as my wife and I did) of buying into the Mac hype only to go back to PCs and never look back. Unless you specifically need a Mac, I'd say in almost all cases, you're better off with a PC. Think about all the copycat iMacs that were around a few years ago.. the eOne, the Gateway Profile... People don't spend $500+ lightly. They want the piece of mind of knowing that their purchase is going to be upgradeable (in other words, not obsolete in two years) and that they are not going to be limited in buying peripherals in the future (Joe User doesn't want to have to read box labels to see which versions of Mac OS X his new all-in-one printer is compatible with).
For some people $499 is half a month's income. That's a pretty sizable chunk of money to just throw out willy-nilly.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
"Except that in those instances, they were not given a choice. Those users, when they went to buy a new computer, no longer had the option of buying an Intel PC without Windows,"
/. users thinks it is even possible for a user to want to use Windows - not just that they are forced to use Windows...
Bull - it has always been an option to buy a PC without an OS. Maybe buying a coprorate (I.E. Dell, Gateway) without an OEM OS is more difficult, but it is still possible. Hell, I bought a Dell last year with no OS on it and saved $50 or so. As a matter or fact, my last 3 home PCs were all purchased without an OS - so don't say it isn't possible, just not as probable. I just it funny that not a single
"But this one goes to 11!"
With every single PC vendor invested in the idea of destroying Apple, I don't see Apple being able to win a war of minds/marketing.
The only person really invested in Apple succeeding is Apple. Dell, HP, Best Buy, Gateway, AMD and many many more have a huge investment in being able to sell computers and computer components. Unless you're on Apple's "in" list of mandated components, you don't want to see a closed architecture win. To some degree Intel moving to the apple platform will at least bring on giant to their defense, but it's a small step in the long run.
Please switch, Steve Jobs needs another $850,000,000 contribution.
Alternatively, you can run secure, reliable GNU/Linux for free.
People has been saying that security is THE good argument for switching forever, be it Linux, Solaris, BSD or Mac folks, but this has never been a sufficient argument to fuel the switch.
Face it, security is a good scare tactic when a politician is trying to spend OPM (other people's money) to get some pork defense spending in their home district, but not such a good argument when getting people to make decisions about which software they are going to use. Security concerns just don't influence that many people's decisions. Sure if you computer becomes unusable because of malware and such, then people start to notice, but until it happens to you it is someone else's problem.
"I think anyone even discussing this on the OS level is missing the point. Viruses are written for the masses, so if a switch to any other OS by "the masses" ever happens the viruses, malware, etc. will simply follow suit. The 'which OS is better' argument is so old, please, it's like trying to compare a ford taurus, a BMW and a UniMog... they're all different and have different audiences."
Amen brother. But this is Slashdot where you are preaching to a crowd that can't hear - because everyone else is screaming "I run {fill in 1337 OS here} and it is so much better than your crappy {fill in non 1337 OS here} at the top of their lungs.
In 10 years, after everyone makes the switch to OS X or *nix,(haha) then Slashdotters will be talking about how secure the new Windows product is, and how any Mac or *nix box can be "pwned" in 5 seconds by anyone on the internet... (but they will most likely still be talking about Natalie Portman and hot grits)
"But this one goes to 11!"
Uh, unless you happen to be billions of consumers all rolled into one person posting AC, then the only person that you can vouch for how they pick a computer is YOURSELF. And I did say why there is a platform that is more dominant than others.
And as for the second part, Rosy and her daughters are calling you...
Just "gittin-r-done," day after day.
You've forgotten about MS Money... the program was given away for free with most PCs... converting years worth of data from MS Money to Quicken (the only choice on the Mac) is nearly impossible. Also, with a PC buyers know that their favorite banking/shopping/financial services web sites will be supported. With the Mac there is the (real) fear that a buyer will not be able to access sites like Citibank, Sky TVs or anything that requires ActiveX.
Also, if you've invested any time in encoding your CD using Windows Media, they willn't translate well to the Mac....
The real questions... is what does joe consumer get by switching?
Local r00t: Mac OS X <= 10.4.6 (launchd) Local Format String Exploit (ppc) Mac OS X <= 10.4.6 (launchd) Local Format String Exploit (x86)
I think that's the motto here.
...and as soon as everyone uses ONE OS, and the world has turned inside out, the argument will turn to the fact that it's a monopoly and now we need alternate OS's, and the whole problem reinvents itself... And there will still be hackers providing the fear of the unknown.
he is bloated software having too much bells and whistles on him he simply cannot enter any grade chimney anymore. He needs the ones with a logo which appear to be the clouds and windows without glass. Not an easy job these days to be Santa because of incompatible chimneys, bad installations, leaks, ...
;)
..
It's the best of both worlds to have a good open chimney; where one with 100 years of food can fit through with; you got to know; his dietary systems are also not what they used to be when he was like 18 or 21 or so, know what I mean? These days the limitations is in the bottleneck and bandwidth and the money needed to make your pipe as large as you can so more can fit through it. The bottleneck I don't even have to talk about because Santa really -has- a drinking problem and gets often seen as a pedophile because of his likes for lil children; but hey; why can grandpa and he not? He's a real harmless person with a heart as any father on this world... Why judge the book by its cover
my santa list is already being prepared; I'll probably blog about it so he'll sure read it
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
They don't buy Macs because 75% of the world still chuckles at the thought of a computer running anything BUT windows. When a person is already uncomfortable making a purchase they don't fully understand, they aren't going to buy the product that the salesperson laughed at them for even asking about... ...which is why the Apple stores are a very good idea for Apple.
Macintosh is only "security through obscurity"... or at least it was.
;)
As Mac becomes more popular, people will start to notice its holes and flaws and it'll get hammered with spyware/malware/etc. just like Windows.
To be very safe, run Linux and use Lynx to browse the internet
There are two big reasons that account for much of why OS X is safer than Windows:
1. Internet Explorer
2. Outlook Express
These are far from the only reasons (all the remotely exploitable holes in Windows and IIS are just as big), but these are the biggies, since they are installed by default, and so full of holes that it is painfully easy to get infected with normal email/web usage. Also important are ActiveX and Windows Scripting Host, allowing easy ways for strangers to get your computer to run naughty code, but it's the eagerness with which IE and OE will pass code on to be executed that is the real problem there.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
Well, consider that in most stores, PCs are the only type of computer for the salespeople to push. In my city, there are dozens of stores I could walk into and buy a PC off the shelf. There are only two places where I could buy a Mac. One's a CompUSA and the other is a freestanding Apple store.
That means there's one store in an area with about a million people where you would see both types of computers. Which in turn means the chances are pretty close to zero that a typical computer buyer would have the opportunity to check out a Mac while shopping around.
Not that that's the only factor, and probably it's not the most important one, but I'm sure it's "in play" here.
Someone making $12,000 a year isn't going to be worried about buying ANY computer. Food and a place to live would be bigger issues.
You're not the only one by a long shot, but I have to point out the inherent logical absurdity of "Macs are going to be 'Just As Bad' when X percent of the people adopt them!". This entire worldview assumes that all system design decisions are security/malware neutral; this seems obviously absurd to me, no matter what system you apply it to. I mean, someone can certainly attempt to make a case explaining how the security model of OSX is inferior to Windows', or the other way 'round (which I think more likely), but to jump on the whole JAB bandwagon is abandoning reason in favor of politics.
I agree with the first part of your final line - "Real security comes through proper training of administrators and users." But the operating system is an integral part of that. Ever used any trusted platform? (a real one, like trusted solaris or hpux) There's some os-down security enforcement!
All security decisions are a compromise between usability and security. All of them. I can make my windows boxen 99.999% secure by unplugging them from the network and controlling all physical access. But in the real world, a useful system is attached to a network, and the OS is a vital part of that security arrangement.
Anyone who truly believes that *nix isn't attacked constantly, or for that matter, by very high-level attackers, is too limited in experience and not in a position to have reality impinge upon his or her preconceptions. Watch the firewalls protecting any *nix network - say at a bank - and then tell me that there just aren't that many attacks on *nix. Or - try this... run up your linux box, rename your root user to something else, and create an unprivileged user named root. Then log in to any IRC server that will let you, join #linux, and watch your firewall go stupid as script kiddies and various other bored hackers try and 'pwn' your system. The reason there aren't many worms for *nix at all is mostly because the security model makes it extremely difficult to build a useful worm/virus, and it's likely to stay that way.
Thinking outside my Head
I'll go you one further: we'll never see mass migration until there's something new that users just can't live without on a different system than the one they have now. Otherwise you will get a trickle of users from system x to system y because system y is more secure, has a shinier box, or whatever. If you could really take the exact same CDs from your windows box and just run them on your mac/bsd/whatever install, that would probably do it too, but I think that innovation will end up paving the way away from - or back to - Microsoft.
As more users make the switch, so will the malware coders.
One thing to consider is that in terms of classic executable exploits like buffer overflows, the clock for Macs to get that first "wild virus" has been reset. Apparently the tens of millions of Macs in service today are not enough of a target to warrant writing exploits for - but that target is no longer growing as the Mac base has shifts to Intel chips. If you were an exploit writer today would you target older systems (and if so, why would that not have been done already) with a static and slowly declining userbase, or the numerically much smaller yet growing group of Intel users?
That's one reason why Macs should actually be safe for at least a few more years from whole categories of attack.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Perhaps you've been in a coma or something, but most Mac hardware IS x86 hardware now.
(%i1) factor(777353);
(%o1) 777353
$499 will buy you a Mac Mini. That's a computer minus those unnecessary peripherals: display, mouse, keyboard...
So, in addition to this truly groundbreaking news that "Windows security" is anything but, which makes just about anything more secure, could Sophos have possibly used a more idiotic metric?
Using the ten most common malwares, they found that -- gasp -- they infected the most common machines! Could it be that those are the common malwares because the machines they infect are also common?
Look at it another way. If every single Mac were infected with something, you could say "Well, only 4% of desktop / laptop computers are infected, therefore it's not very common and nothing to really worry about."
mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
Windows is not secure - yes, there's no surprise here. Here's another thing that's not surprising: It doesn't matter. People don't want better security. They may say they want it, but they aren't willing to do anything to make it happen. It's just human nature.
Seriously, show me a nerd for whom this is news?
I don't want to read
Most hackers don't need a huge number of installs to stroke their ego. The opportunity to prove that OS X is just as vulnerable as Windows should be more than enough to motivate someone to release an OS X virus into the wild. Yet no one has done it.
There must be more at work here than OS X's small market share. OS X must be inherently more secure than Windows to not have a virus in the wild six years after its release. Certainly there are enough hackers out there who would love to show their prowess by writing an OS X virus, even for the relatively small number of OS X installs that exist; but nobody has been able to do it yet.
To the end consumer PCs are computers, Macs are computers. They go to a shop and see some computers. They buy one that is cheap and which does everything they think they need. The Mac is expensive, they can't see that it does anything that the PC with Windows doesn't, at least not that they think they need.
So they buy the PC with Windows.
Get PCs with Ubuntu in the shop, and make it clear what an array of stuff it has thrown in and they'll buy it.
So true. I don't think people realize that attack vectors change although concepts behind them don't very often. There are flaws with apple's design too.
1. users can install software
2. users administer their home computers
3. kids know more than their parents and install kazaa or whatever the next trend is.
When apple finally gets back serious market share, we will see more attacks against the os. In fact, some of the worst windows malware is INSTALLED by the users. There is no attack unless you consider it social engineering. No OS can protect from idiots.. it can only slow them down.
MidnightBSD: The BSD for Everyone
This is what I use to explain to people why Macs ARE more secure than running Windows.
Ways Windows gets you hacked/virused/etc...
1) Auto-run on CD's
2) IE flaws
3) Outlook flaws
4) Services running by default
5) Trojans
6) App buffer overflows
On Macs
1) No Auto-run on CD's. You have to go and find the app to run it, which is why those Sony DRM-infecting CD's didn't actually nail any Mac users. Nobody bothered to run the app and install it. (There was a Mac version on the CD)
2) You can argue that Safari and Firefox will be just as bad as IE, but for now they both have been doing better and avoid major architectural flaws such as ActiveX and being deeply embedded in the OS.
3) In Apple's Mail.app pictures display as pictures, apps are attachments, etc... takes extra effort to run a trojan, but that's #5
4) By default on Macs no servers at all are running, whereas on Windows you must manually shut down a LOT of them.
5) Trojans will always be a problem unless perhaps companies start using Intel's method of running apps inside a sandbox VM or something.
6) Not much I can say here, Linux and some BSD's I'm sure are way better in this with random offsets in their mallocs, and I'm sure Apple could do something similar.
Okay so 4 out of 6 simply do not apply to Mac users, and the other 2 are fundamental problems that will most likely always be around.
Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
Yeah couldn't agree more. Inertia always wins.
.... my wife insisted that the girl have the same stuff she encounters at school so this time I didn't fight and just got a cheap XP box.
... after 4 days (!) of struggle getting XP to work on the home network (and ultimately cornering the 10 connection limit as the main culprit behind _absolutely_ lousy performance), my wife says "if you hate Windows so much, why did you buy it?"
I've spent the last few years defenestrating my household (mostly Linux but a couple of Mac's), and fully intended to buy my daughter a MacTel when she started high school a few weeks ago.
But
Despite the fact that they've (children and spouse) all been using desktop Linux for a couple of years now and have never said boo (except the younger brother who is very keen on PC games), or even noticed the difference.
SO
Doh.
A MacTel laptop is due to arrive shortly.
This happens quite often, especially with the newer spyware variants that are borrowing techniques from rootkits to hide themselves.
Formatting the drive, reinstalling the OS, and restoring data from backups is an effective remedy. User education and the use of better software can help prevent future occurrences.
Ummm... The cheapest iMac is $1299 new. That is expensive, and it is one of the big reasons that I have stuck with Windows for so long.
"I wonder what goes through the mind of the average person, when thinking about buying there next computer. Do they buy PCs because that is what they always have had, and it is what everyone they know has? Or is it a certain love for applications that aren't on macs. (surely not) Is it the salesmen in the stores, pushing pcs?"
Well, I would imagine that it is closely linked to the presence of a nice shiney Mac store. People just go to PC World/ Best Buy/ Comp USA and bu a computer. I bet that most people don't even consider a Mac. However in those towns where a nice new Mac store has opened up I bet Mac has a much greater market share amongst new PC purchases. It would be interesting to see some demographics on this.
while sco {
wget -O
}
But consider a worm like SASSER. It's plausible that such a worm could get even a competent user of any OS, provided it exploited an open service. Imagine if you were one of the first victims of such a worm, or if you couldn't remediate your system because the update servers were hammered. Assuming you're secure just due to past luck is dangerous.
OS X is more secure, but that doesn't make it or any OS secure. OS X allegedly has some serious vulnerabilities waiting in the wings. I say get an old x86 or SPARC box, throw OpenBSD on it, configure pf (perhaps this is the hardware firewall to which you refer), and it doesn't matter what you're running behind it, you'll at least have a spohisticated extra layer of security.
(%i1) factor(777353);
(%o1) 777353
You're talking about the same people that whine just because their ipod doesn't automagically start a song and dance routine the moment they plug it into their PC. These people are beyond helpless. These people are beyond lazy. What they really need is a souped up equivalent of an Atari 800 or Amiga with NO MULTITASKING.
Give them the a sad attempt at cloning VMS with a sad attempt at cloning the Macintosh bolted onto it and it will just be fertile ground for remote exploits.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Had you considered the possibility that we might actually prefer Windows, or even think it's better?
Than what, a sharp stick in the eye?
BTW, kudos for a great troll. Not worried about security, because you avoid opening mail attachements or viewing some web sites? Priceless!
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Sophos knows how lazy the end users are and realizes that they can give the appearance of being so virtuous that they are willing to saw off the branch they are sitting on. They can make themselves look like the knight in shining armour because they are secure in the knowledge that most people won't do what's in their own best interests if it requires just a little bit of inconvenience.
They realize that the statement really can't do them any harm.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
How did "pieces" turn into "kinds" though?
Both the citation and the headline misrepresent the results of the "study". What Sophos unearthed with great difficulty is not that the Mac is more secure than Windows, only that it's less-threatened. Security is more than being absent from the scene.
So the 10 most common trojans are written for Windows (Uh, duh!) The 10 most common productivity applications are written for Windows. Both target Windows for the same reason. It's not the volume that matters—it's the effectiveness.
I'm a Programmer. That's one level above Software Engineer and one level below Engineer.
The thing is computers shouldn't cost that much--at least the low end. Most home users don't really need much. They could easily get by with a computer which could be sold for less than $50(US). The question is: why don't computer manufacturers make these cheap computers? (I suppose the answer is they want more profit...)
linux isn't safer merely because it's a "smaller" target. the development model and worldwide peer review make the code qualitatively better than windows' proprietary code.
free software, open standards, open file formats, no software patents.
Most users are lazy--they don't even want to enter a password. I installed Linux on my mother's computer, and she complained because she had to enter a username and password. I had to set kdm to auto log her in.
And FWIW, that computers are being used primarily for business isn't an assumption, it's a fact. Second behind that is viewing porn (the distribution of porn largely falling under the business side of things) :P. I wish they were used primarily for spreading world peace and ending hunger, but that just isn't so.
(%i1) factor(777353);
(%o1) 777353
What do you mean "surely not"? Can I run City of Heroes/Villains or DDO natively on an Apple machine IN OS/X (NOT in Windows dual-booted, and NOT in VirtualPC/VMWare/Other Emulation Software)?
Oh I don't know, but I'm with most of the millions of others who would rather play World of Warcraft and Starcraft... (the most popular games in history) lo and behold they work just fine on my Mac, even with the same discs from the PC version! Imagine that!
Those who laugh at you for you having a Mac.. are the people who constantly call you to fix their PC.
Oh I don't know, but I'm with most of the millions of others who would rather play World of Warcraft and Starcraft... (the most popular games in history) lo and behold they work just fine on my Mac, even with the same discs from the PC version! Imagine that!
Perhaps, then, you failed to see the "not in other emulation software" part? Here, let me paste it in for you:
What do you mean "surely not"? Can I run City of Heroes/Villains or DDO natively on an Apple machine IN OS/X (NOT in Windows dual-booted, and NOT in VirtualPC/VMWare/Other Emulation Software)?
See that, there? The bolded part?
Yes, that means playing your games in Wine (or whatever OSX is using to play WoW/Starcraft) doesn't count.
Plus, your offer of being able to play WoW and Starcraft is irrelevent to what I said. WoW/Starcraft != CoV/CoH or DDO. I refuse to switch to another MMORPG from those I play simply because another "is the most popular game in history". What does it matter if I loath the game?
bork bork bork!
Like that one time when someone put in an exploit and all those peers couldn't find it? Great security model.....
-]Phreak Out[-
I like MacOS. But the fact that it does not install on the PC is a major drawback. I don't want to be locked into Apple hardware. The reason you don't see MacOS on PC's is because Apple doesn't sell an operating system. Apple sells a consumer electronic. Apple sells an image.
Considering that most graphic designers don't know much about networking, scripting or coding, they tend to prefer the Mac.
Does this statement make any sense? OS X has built in scripting interpreters for numerous languages, a functional command line, GUI piping/tranforms/scripts via Automator, free dev tools including gcc. On Windows the user has to install cygwin, which does not even interact with cygwin in any meaningful way. On OS X you can pipe things to and from Photoshop. OS X wins hands down if for no other reason than I can run perl scripts without a huge hassle.
Aside from that, you make some good points. Different OS's are better for different tasks and different people. I use Linux, OS X, OpenBSD, NetBSD, and Windows XP regularly. The only thing about the previous poster that gives me pause is that based upon their comments, I don't think they've used OS X to try to do their tasks, or if they did they tried to replicate them exactly and do things just how they used to on Windows. It is hard to argue that for basic command line usage or for commercial graphics work is not king of the hill. The level of integration between gui apps and the cli, the ability to see previews of photoshop files and globally search text within them, scripting, system services, and both free and commercial application availability from both open source and commercial sources just makes those workflows so much easier.
Now Windows certainly has its uses in a lot of areas and is hands down the best for niche application availability in most fields, but I'm suspicious of anyone arguing it for the above uses over OS X.
He didn't say it was perfect, just that it's better.
Currently hooked on AMP
This Just In:
A recent RAND Corporation study of expert opinion found that nuclear warheads are more likely to target populous areas, such as New York City and other major cities. The study concluded that residents of Nkwajalalakalaka, a small village in East Borneo, are statistically the least likely to be targeted for nuclear annihilation.
In related news, the mayor of Nkwajalalakalaka announced that the council of village elders have voted unanimously to "drop off the map". (The original East Borneonian phrase is "biyamacanlaffatdawinteloserindaspotalita", which has no literal English translation.)
They are what makes me hate Macs. I think I would honestly give them a try if I didn't have to hear fanboys professing the godliness of all things Mac on a daily basis.
So are you saying that the people who brought us this technology didn't do something original and creative? I think they'd beg to differ.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
I'll tell you the three reasons this "lazy" user has stuck to a Windows/AMD box (you acknowledge the first one):
Just one geek's opinion.
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
It is what they have at work, and are thus ...better able to copy all the software off it to run at home. Someone once told me that was why he only used Windows - all the software was free for him.
Your fantasies contain the seeds of important concepts.
What about the simple and clear (~1) coorelation between number of users per OS and number of virus/malware/spyware/etc. targeting that OS. It's easy to tout your security numbers when you're 2% of the market. .......because GM cars are stolen 100000x more than Fiats in North America, is a Fiat more secure than a GM?
Now that I think of it, this entire article and the entire Windows vs. Macs argument is purely pirates and global warming. Once again evidence that His noodly appendage touches all facets of our lives. Repent!
No. In all fairness, neither had I considered the possibility that you might be afflicted with rabies or fetal alcohol syndrome.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Not clueless or an idiot I can accept. I can't imagine that you "know more about computers than most people here". That's an arrogant statement at best and in my experience I've never met anyone who would say or type such a thing that truly knew his or her ass from a hole in the ground.
I think this is a fairly run of the mill troll from someone who stopped seriously paying attention to what Apple was doing when they retired OS 9. Your points about application availability in Linux made sense. Your points aboutthe Mac platform were pretty much one and all laughable.
Anyone who can't figure out how the dock is supposed to work is retarded. It's as simple as it gets
>>What do you mean "surely not"? Can I run City of Heroes/Villains or DDO natively on an Apple machine IN OS/X (NOT in Windows dual-booted, and NOT in VirtualPC/VMWare/Other Emulation Software)?
I suspect you're just creating a hypothetical situation in the hopes of finding a combination where you can say "See... the Mac can't do everything I need." But to answer your question, you can run most WinXP software full-speed alongside Mac OS X by using a virtualizer such as Parallels Desktop ($50 - www.parallels.com) However, Parallels Desktop doesn't (yet?) offer 3D acceleration, so BootCamp (which is free) is a better solution for 3D video games. No, with Bootcamp you can't run Final Cut Pro at the same time you play City Of Heroes, but then again, who does? And that's the premise of your original question and the reason I suspect it's a strawman -- who plays videogames while SIMULTANEOUSLY doing their taxes, writing code in Visual Studio, etc.? And if the 60 seconds for a reboot from Mac OS X to WindowsXP is too costly, perhaps you don't have time to be playing video games. Or maybe I just don't get it.
Mabye because its only 1 out of every 10 users uses a mac. As populatiry goes up so will the viruses. Doesnt mean they are more secure just means no one cares to find exploits.
The greatest revenge in life is massive success.
Ha! I actually CAN browse russian porn/warez sites!
Linux rocks!
---You get more security, etc, and you will get your next cool OS upgrade 1-2 years later instead of 5. (And you get to wear black turtle necks and jeans)
And if Apple did something like put a firewall around the Windows instead, and not let it make internet connections except with user warning first, and you did all of your surfing and email in Apple land, wouldn't that be just fine?
You get your windows XP apps running at ~ full speed, and you get your new OS, and you get security.
How does Vista compete with that? Apple would have the same compatibility with XP apps (maybe more, XP would be running natively on the Leopard system, vista is a new version of the OS, and might have compatibility issues) Apple could even throw in an upgrade sticker kicker to make it even more cost competitive. Like if you show proof of purchase of XP you get an upgrade discount buying the Apple hardware.
As a bonus you get iLife with the Mac: http://www.apple.com/ilife/, which could be better than most if not all of what is available on Windows for entry level photo/music/iPod Casting/Movie making, etc, and is FREE. You can always turn the mac into a beautiful windows Vista only machine later if you desire, so there is no Vendor lock in on stuff. You are basically trading the cost of the (Apple machine + Free iLife + MacOSX Tiger/Leopard + Free More Security) vs (new Vista Machine+Vista+Security headaches). To me this is the reason why the Mac argument works vs. the other OS choices, and in addition you have most of the important software Mac Native as well, so you can wean yourself off of Windows versions of other stuff at your convenience, trading increasing vendor dependency for more Mac native stuff (some people think that stuff is better, Ill leave that to you to make up your own mind).
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Sure the Mac has those things but it hasn't historically. So anyone who is aware of that functionality is likely a new convert to the Mac or was a techhead Mac user to begin with. I've known tons of Photoshop/Pagemaker, etc... users who never touched that sort of thing on the old MacOS and when Mac OS X came out were griping about how it was too much like Windows for them. In fact one of them told me, "You can always tell when an OS is poorly thought out. It has a command line application to account for it's failings. With Mac OS 7, that was never an issue. Mac OS X is a failure".
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
Sure the Mac has those things but it hasn't historically.
It's been five years now, I'm not sure anyone who is still in the industry can have missed it.
You do, of course, realize that WoW and Starcraft are native Mac applications and if you buy either game, the disc just happens to be a hybrid Mac/PC disc (usable on either system)? It's not using "Wine", it's using the native APIs in the OS.
Now, playing CoV/CoH and DDO is a different story, but, two of the most popular games ever are Mac native and have been for quite a while.
While we both agree on your point #1, I think that once enough of the ordinary users start using a different OS, #2 and #3 will be a non-issue.
Suppose most users are using a non-Windows OS for office applications. Do you think that the game industry would let these users out of their market? I doubt.
That's also true concerning hardware vendors. Just look at the myriad of gadgets that exist today for the iPod. And if your base system is basically Intel-based, then the vendors would already be familiar with the architecture.
BUT, I have to admit that it is a long run until enough users are converted to a non-Windows system for this user base to appeal to other industries, and that may be a huge barrier for the conversion.
Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
"Why not use Windows? Primarily because I don't see any point in paying for a proprietary and incompatible system that offers me less than a Mac. Also, the Windows interface is an abomination. A hodgepodge of totally different (but equally hideous) skins, aliased fonts, and whizz-bang effects that do nothing but slow down any attempt at serious work. And the taskbar? Seriously, what were they smoking? I've seen hardened Microsoft fanatics break down in tears because they can't figure out how the taskbar is supposed to work. Microsoft stopped doing intuitive when they retired Windows 3.1. I'm surprised more people haven't noticed yet."
Sounds just as ignorant the other way around, doesn't it?
And neither is anything coded. Isn't it true that most people arent trying to create problems for Mac/Linux, while most people target Microsoft? No system is TOTALLY safe - its not how programs/OS'es are built. There is never a way to totaly protect a system - but there are, of course, ways to make it next to impossible. I'm sure somewhere inside the MAC OS, there's something waiting to be exploited. Maybe its a good challenge? If there's a will, there's a way... Besides, i thought that there was a proof-of-concept cirus for macs not too long ago? I could be wrong... -Red
Guns don't kill people, "with glowing hearts" kills people.
It is pretty much the first one. It's a bit like cars - most people go out and get a petrol one, because they're easier to get hold of, and more common. LPG and hybrids are niche, even though everyone knows the argument that the extra expense on the car is more than saved on fuel.
And when it comes to cars, my wife and I have a Ford Ka (one of the most common UK cars). It's not an area of my life where I'm that bothered about spending that much money as it's just a device to get to work and back. I wouldn't pay extra for safety and comfort on a short daily commute. I can entirely understand why for some people computers are like that.
Need a computer. Look for something cheap and well-known. Buy.
I work in a software house, where we develop Java based apps for Unix servers, where most of the staff are comfortable with vi; yet at home most of them have PCs. We did have two Linux users but one of them switched back. That leaves one Linux user and me as the sole Mac user.
(Although there are now several people who will take a look next time they get a machine; I've made a niche tidying up camcorder footage and burning to DVD. However, one of them who had been very impressed with iMovie told her husband, and he came back with an all-in-one Sony Media Centre PC. He was an IT consultant. I think it goes to show that most people still think it's the outside that's different).
'Capitalists of the world, unite! Oh
Unless circumstances change drastically, Mac OS will always be more secure - even if it becomes more popular. Through security by obscurity alone Mac OS is 1000x more secure than Windows, and even it does become more popular (and therefore supposedly more likely to attract malicious software makers - though I would argue it would still be less popular due to a different image and user base) it will probably still be more secure by design and maintainence.
Haiku for you!
Oh yeah, Oh yeah, these paragraphs of yours show really how skilled you are, especially when you keep saying "Seriously" Obviously, your entourage doesn't take your arguments seriously. Thanks for educating us. We're most impressed by your statement. But seriously, do you seriously think that your argument is serious?
Yeah, I get confused too, especially when I miss the introduction in those commercials. I'll happily sort it out for you:
That guy in the left that with glasses is the PC guy. He really knows his stuff and looks pretty experienced. The younger guy on the right is the Mac guy. He's the only guy abandoning the Mac because the PC guy wins him over with that great argument about PCs having really cool apps like calculator and spreadsheets. Man, if I owned a Mac, I'd abandon one too, due to that PC guy's superior argument, making that 2 people fleeing.
Switching purely for security reasons inherently requires two things:
1. A person is SMART enough to realize they have a CHOICE in security measures, and are PROACTIVE enough to implement that decision.
2. A person who is too STUPID or LAZY to practice proper safe usage habits. Examples include idiots who cannot seem to pick "No" when prompted by software, or can't be bothered to pay attention and update when security patches are released.
See the problem there? If you are a competent user, you RARELY have security problems (now that most security issues boil down to automated attacks like zombies and trojans). You KNOW you can switch for better security, but since your experience has been good, security is not a big impetus for you to switch.
The fact of the matter is, YOU CAN have a %99.9 worry-free experience with Windows if you use a hardware / software firewall, use Firefox as your web browser, and don't open strange attachments. Since most people with a clue already do this, they have little impetus to switch for security alone.
If you are an idiot user, your security experience is pretty crappy, but you usually have no idea that you have a choice. These people are usually too afraid of technology to educate themselves.
So, security ends up being a tiny issue for getting people to switch operating systems. This is, as-opposed to applications, where the more secure versions are gaining ground.
Man is the animal that laughs.
And occasionally whores for Karma.
You fail it, too.
Again:
Plus, your offer of being able to play WoW and Starcraft is irrelevent to what I said. WoW/Starcraft != CoV/CoH or DDO. I refuse to switch to another MMORPG from those I play simply because another "is the most popular game in history". What does it matter if I loath the game?
Your comment is completely irrelevant. I didn't ask about WoW/Starcraft. I asked about CoV/CoH and DDO.
Yes, it is nice that WoW/Starcraft have native "mac" versions. I don't care. Lots of the population in the world don't care.
I really don't know how much more simple I can make this without gaining more troll mods (I still can't believe the message you replied to was marked troll. Probably the part about my not caring about WoW.)
bork bork bork!
Does this statement make any sense? OS X has built in scripting interpreters for numerous languages, a functional command line, GUI piping/tranforms/scripts via Automator, free dev tools including gcc. On Windows the user has to install cygwin, which does not even interact with cygwin in any meaningful way.
I'm not convinced that the AppleEvents/Mac side of the house interacts with the Unix side very well (osascript, eh). At least not any better than on Windows.
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
I won't bother to explain why since I'll just get labeled a troll anyway, but I also prefer Windows. It's what I'm used to and I am fast enough with the interface to be essentially mouse-less, so there's little reason for me to change until my needs change. I also play a lot of PC-only games.
- For every action, there is an equal and opposite criticism.
i suspect the cost of ownership has something to do with it, but i could be wrong.
I'm not convinced that the AppleEvents/Mac side of the house interacts with the Unix side very well (osascript, eh). At least not any better than on Windows.
Take the command:
open -a "Abobe Photoshop CS2.app" /~user/Pictures/temp2.tiff
Combine with all the power of the shell environment.
Try using cygwin to launch Windows apps and pass them parameters. How about monitoring them? Try moving a folder in Explorer and see what happens to your view of it in Cygwin. Try the same with Finder and terminal.app. I've used both and let me tell you, Windows+Cygwin is not even close to the level of integration you'll find with OSX, its shell, and applications.
On top of that you have OS X's better integration with applications on other levels. You can use spelling, grammar, translation etc. in Photoshop or InDesign or most other applications. You can add arbitrary functionality to the OS that the applications gain access to with services. The indexed filesystem extends to photoshop and PDF files, so searches on OS X will return results that may be captions in an image. Really, there is just not much contest. Windows has been behind for years now for this sort of work.
It's really much simpler...
Why people don't buy Macs: $$$
Yes I know that a "similarly" equipped Dell will cost you pretty close to the same as a Mac, but people don't buy the similarly equipped Dell either. They buy the $300 Dell. With free 15" LCD and free DVD burner upgrade and free printer, etc. Even "power" users with bigger budgets do similar things. They get a computer with less features but more power (CPU/RAM/HDD) than any Mac. It's the same reason that "base" models of cars sell the most, even though salesmen will push hard for the "higher" models with all the options. The higher models here are Macs.
Why people don't buy Linux: Because nobody sells Linux.
Ok, I know that Walmart may have Linspires out there, but that is negligible. Most people are not going to buy a computer and then have to re-install all the software. Only "computer people" will do this.
Take the command: /~user/Pictures/temp2.tiff
open -a "Abobe Photoshop CS2.app"
WOW! You're aware that virtually all Windows programs have supported this since the beginning of time, right? Guess not. [That's also not "piping", BTW. I would be surprised if you could cat file.tiff > Photoshop.app, but maybe it's possible.]
Try moving a folder in Explorer and see what happens to your view of it in Cygwin.
So, Cygwin is really buggy -- just another reason not to use it, I guess. I get by with native ports of the GNU tools. Also, IIRC, Cygwin Perl and the like doesn't talk to COM, so of course there's no integration. Use the native versions instead, and the scriptablity of the software like Photoshop and MS Office is usually identical between the Windows and Mac versions.
On top of that you have OS X's better integration with applications on other levels.
Agreed. But it has very little to do with Unix.
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
I believe the word you're looking for is "won't"
i beleive it was in the article for the "hack my mac" story here on slashdot where there were a few macs in some of the zombie nets that one of the security sites referenced in the article.
you have to remember, people are stupid, they click on anything and everything. it doesn't matter if it is a mac or a linux box or a windows box... it all comes down to the user. Take an idiot and sit them down in front of a computer that the best security techs have " idiot-proofed"... how long do you think it will be before it gets infected. apple, bsd, linux have security threats found everyday so does windows... you just hear about it more often.
ahh well enough rambling, point is though that there are infected macs out there.
To err is human; effective mayhem requires the root password!
I think that "peer code review" advantage of OSS is overrated - or at least offset by hunks of code being copied/reused all over the place. Remember the serious SNMP vulnerability from a couple of years ago that affected damn near *everybody*? How many times had *that* code been reviewed over the last twenty years?
KeS
>There is no point in compromising a Mac
A Mac probably belongs to someone who can afford a Mac. It's likely to be less heavily defended than a Windows machine, simply because a lightly defended Mac will keep running where a lightly defended Windows machines will succumb within weeks (minutes for anything before XP SP2).
Rich and vulnerable makes for attractive targets. In business you make money by being where other people aren't, and malware is business.
The day there are enough Macs total, regardless of market share, someone will take one of the security holes and build an exploit. The day someone publishes the exploit code, script kiddies will start ringing the changes on it. If they take advantage of a privilege escalation vulnerability, of which there have been too many, then the Mac's sensible don't-run-as-root model won't help.
All of which is irrelevant since what's most dangerous to the user is phishing, a cross-platform attack.
It seems to me that that sort of argument undervalues your time, your data, and a comfortable state of mind.
I predict that within a week or so Sophos will follow-up this report with a "clarification" saying that they didn't actually mean it, that Microsoft Windows is a secure operating system when properly configured, etc., etc. The language will be such that anyone with an ounce of sense will realize that Microsoft has tightened the thumbscrews on them and essentially forced a retraction.
--Stuart
>Real security comes through proper training of administrators and users. Real security does not come with the operating system
That's thought-provoking.
The Sophos article is talking about desktop systems which have a human in the loop. If it's a general purpose desktop system (not locked down), then absolutely real security depends on installing good security software into the brain of the human.
And yet there has been malware which propagated without human assistance. To prevent this you need a solid operating system. Thought experiment: you're tasked with turning a spare PC into a firewall. Do you load it with OpenBSD or with Windows?
A good OS is necessary but not sufficient.
It's totally intuitive to everyone but computer geeks. It is simply a place you put things that you need easy access to. Use an application often? Drag it onto the Dock. Working on a certain document lately? Drag it onto the Dock. Need to access a certain folder often? Drag it onto the Dock. When you're done needing it you just drag it off. And if you open an application or file some other way, it shows up on the Dock automatically.
:-)
The best physical analogy I can think of is a shelf where you put all things you need the most often. If you need something else you can always go to the garage to get it (and while you're using it if you put it down, it automatically goes to that shelf to wait). But most of the time you can just go to that shelf or drawer and get started right away.
It's an innovative UI element, crosses a ton of "standard" computer boundaries, and so of course it's hated by the geeks who are hard-wired to use computers a certain way. They're not exactly Apple's main UI audience though. For those people Apple includes Terminal.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Now, it is possible at some point they could choose to become a software only (just selling OS X) or a hardware only (licensing Windows for their machines) company. But, considering the control issues they've shown with the iPod (not licensing out Fairplay to other hardware manufacturers, refusing to license Playsforsure and other DRM formats for their own players), I'd say it would probably be a cold day in Hell before that happens.
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
That means that not even malware developers bother to port their software to mac!
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
"I don't think you've not subscribed to the Slashdot "group think" since there is no such thing to subscribe (or not) to."
Yes there is. And before you kneejerk and say there isn't, you might want to look up what groupthink* is, and isn't.
*It's not the same thing as hypocrisy.
First- to everyone who said, there is no one writing virus' or spyware for macs. Why not? Wouldnt it be great to make a company look stupid who claims to be immune? This should put a big target on their back if anything. Second- The vast majority of mac programs can be installed by dragging 1 package/folder/.app to the application folder and can be run outside of that folder if wanted. There is no need to install .dll's etc... The only installing I did was with my Adobe software. Everything else was drag and drop. Even if i got a piece of spyware on my mac, it would have a hard time installing and launching itself. vs. an activeX control that sends that baby right to your Windows folder to reak havoc.
I'm sorry, but if you can't figure out the Dock then you're retarded. You don't have to like it, but it's not like it's difficult.
So what is your point? Mac Os X has a CLI, as do Linux and Windows. So what if people rooted in MacOs 7.5 think it's a failure because of it? What are you saying?
I wonder what goes through the mind of the average person, when thinking about buying there next computer.
Hey Billy! Need a computer? Here's a big pile of them here in the main aisle of Walmart. Look at the list of free stuff it includes: a printer, AOL, IE, and the internet. Heck and we can afford it too, it fits on our Walmart Card.
If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
......and as soon as everyone uses ONE OS......
I don't think it will ever come to that. What will likely happen is that Macs will rise to maybe 35-40% total computer users. When VISTA finally does arrive, many users will find that their existing software will not work any more and they will also need to learn what is in effect a new computer. The popularity and the penetration of the Apple name, because of the ipod will also drive more Mac sales. Microsoft has promised more security with every OS, but VISTA will still have more malware than the Mac if past history is a guide.
The old excuse, especially in enterprise environments that Apple computers cannot run their special software is also less now because of the Intel switch. Apple makes high quality hardware and businesses will buy Macs since they are cool and well designed. They can run Windows both in dual boot or virtual mode. This will give many Windows users an easy chance to try Mac OSX and many will increasingly use OSX as they notice the difference. They will clamor for the OSX version of their Windows applications, when they find that their Windows partition or virtual machine is infected with all sorts of malware, unless they buy and keep up security software, whereas they have no such worries for OSX.
OSX and other UNIX variants are harder to hack, since they were made for a multi-user environment where the possibility of hackers existed long before the Internet made the spreading of malware so efficient. Windows single user heritage still hobbles it when it comes to hacker resistance.
All theory is gray
Hello all:
Most remote attacks targeting Windows are related to buffer-overflowing. The whole point is, you overflow an input buffer in such a way to actually take control of the Program Counter register and with that, you can inject and execute all sorts of assembly instructions. Since you are talking about assembly instructions, I can see why attacks targeting Windows system do not work against the Mac OS.
This article makes me wonder: how vulnerable is a Mac? First of all, Intel processors now get to live life in a Mac. Does that mean now, new Mac's are vulnerable? As well, does Mac OS handle the sub-routine stacks the same way as Windows? If so, then all attackers need to do is inject PowerPC specific assembly instructions. One would expect, then, that a Mac is really just as vulnerable as a PC.
Can someone technical offer their opinions on these questions? Thanks.
Cheers.
B. Pascal
....This is a freedom which Apple users will likely never fully enjoy....
Agreed, for us geeks a traditional PC box is much better to mess around with. I have one of those for geeking around with new hardware and software, including Linux. If it crashes because of a screw-up of mine or a bug or virus, it doesn't cause me any loss of important data. If someone installs a rootkit or other malware, they don't get sensitive information, because that machine doesn't contain any. My son got and x-bax360 for playing games. The price of the latter and the above PC are about comparable to my Mac.
However for my day to day use, e-mail, surfing, photos, banking etc., I use a Mac. These are simply a better choice when I am not playing the geek and for ordinary users. The chance of getting infected by malware is also non-existent for practical purposes.
All theory is gray
....WinDOS: The nature of Microsoft engineering still resides within XP.....
After VISTA ships you'll have to add that to your sig
All theory is gray
cat file.tiff > Photoshop.app
That is not piping; that just redirects the 'output' stream from stdout to the file 'Photoshop.app'. If you want to pipe something to a program, you would have to issue the command: cat file.tiff | Photoshop.app
---- "XML is like violence. If it doesn't fix the problem, you aren't using enough."
[quote]Get PCs with Ubuntu in the shop, and make it clear what an array of stuff it has thrown in and they'll buy it.[/quote]
And that my friend, is the problem...
Aren't the 10 most common malwares common to Windows only because Windows is the dominant platform?
It seems to me that that sort of argument undervalues your time, your data, and a comfortable state of mind.
Either that, or said user is clueful enough that they don't have a problem Windows free from malware with a minimum amount of time spent. Or they run Linux.
So what has kept you from running linux for so long then? Wouldn't that solve your malware issues?
I must say, a well secured windows PC has no reason to become infected, you generally need to sit an idiot down in front of it for that to happen. To make infection even quicker you should explain to them that should not download and install every program advertised on every webpage, this ensures that they ignore your advice and do completely the opposite.
Software Freedom Day!.
Please remember that it's not a laptop, do not allow your daughter to get too close to it without adult supervision, the MacTel is a cooking utensil and nothing more, why not buy a proper laptop, for about half the price, and install linux?
My grandma's mac isn't infected, and she clicks on everything! I'm calling bullshit. Please produce the infected Mac. One synthetic test does not make a real world case. I run the system updater on my grandma's mac about 3-4 times a year. That's probably 1/10th (liberal estimate) of the exposed vulnerability that a Weendoerws box has. I paid my dues supporting Weendoerws and they will never work hard enough to earn my respect after making me eat so much shite back in the day.
If it could be done, it would be done in a public way. If it were within Microsoft's power to do so, they would have done it. Either
--- Nothing clever here: move along now...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Mac OS 9 had oodles of viruses than Mac OS X, and Mac OS 9 had a much smaller install base. Am I right?
Sig: I stole this sig.
Most people have no damn clue why they are buying a computer. Ask anyone you're doing "free" tech support for, honestly and nicely, what they really want to do with the machine, so you can help them make an appropriate purchase.
They won't know, and they'll buy a PC anyway.
People buy all sorts of shit they don't need. It's fueled the home computer industry for years.
They end up using them mostly for games, when a console machine would be better from the standpoint of reliability and ease of use.
+++OK ATH
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Mac OS 9 had oodles of viruses than Mac OS X,
No, it didn't, but thank you for asking.
I saw your comment and read it correctly. You had two points, one was that it failed because it was emulating/not running natively and you mentioned that you were interested in CoV/CoH and DDO. I was correcting your mistake on the first part. I even commented on the second part, which you conveniently didn't quote.
Users did not come up with Active X, turn services and file sharing on and the firewall off by default, did not write Outlook so you can get a virus by merely previewing and email, and did not come up with Microsoft's piss poor security and priveldge separation systems.
Windows is a cesspool because of poor design, not because of clueless users.
Popularity has nothing to do with how vulnerable an OS is. Vulnerabilities in an OS are caused by programming errors and poor design decision. *Full Stop* There is no other cause and critical mass does not have any affect on on how many vulnerabilities exist. You people need to learn what the difference is between flaws/vulnerabilities and exploits. The former exists regardless of how many people are looking for them and the latter comes about when someone discovers one and figures out how to make use of it.
It is true that windows has a lot more exploits partly because of critical mass but the vulnerabilities that make the exploits possible are solely the fault of MSFT developers. There can be no disagreement on this one point.
If Apple gained a lot more market share, there is no guarantee that OS X would have a lot more viruses and exploits. Apple has a completely different security model in OS X from what windows offers and they are generally quick at patching vulnerabilities before an exploit could have a chance to spread.
Someone mentioned cultural differences between windows and mac users. I really think you people should not dismiss it out of hand. You should check out the mac section of versiontracker and mac update. If there is even a hint of spyware in a third-party app, you will hear about it in the user reviews. The mac community has virtually zero tolerance for spyware/adware and most would rather pay for software if they find that it is worth using. Ask some of us cross-platform users out there.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
Well, not exactly, but the arguments that Macs are more secure and resistant to viruses largely seems to be due to the fact that there is a smaller installed base. Part of the same reason most software, games, peripherals, etc. are often designed primarily to work on a PC. It's not that one is inherently superior (and I'm not saying that OS X isn't technically more secure), but that most people writing viruses are going after the largest target. Arguments that go this way (and one of those new Apple switch ads says exactly the same thing) ignore the underlying issue.
If overnight every PC turned into a Mac and vice-versa we'd probably be seeing arguments saying that we all ought to move to PCs because they tend to be targetted by viruses less frequently.
I don't doubt that there might be legitimate technical reasons why one platform is more secure than another, but tell us why. I realize this is hard to convey to a lay audience, but it's the only thing that's makes for a legitimate long-term choice.
Really? Along with the attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion? And the C-beams glittering in the dark near the Tannhauser Gate? Dude, listen: get an agent, fast.
Mister Whirly wrote:
I think a factor in this is the extra work you must go through to purchase a computer without an OS. It is extremely easy to purchase a computer with an OS (and much software) preloaded. But based on what I've heard, you have to jump through a large number of hoops to purchase a computer without an OS.
Although I've not looked into it, the only option that comes to mind for purchasing a computer without an OS is to have a custom system built where I specify every component in the computer. In fact, that is my plan when my current computer wears out: I'm going to have a system made that has components that will work well with Linux, and to ensure that I don't have to pay for a copy of Windows that I will not use.
But I'm a relic of the DOS era, when I had to configure my system myself. For example, I remember a time when print drivers were an issue, and I was happy to find a word processor that included a program that actually let you write your own custom print driver for use with the program.
Now computers are approaching the status of an appliance: buy it, put it on a table, turn it on, and use it. Whatever your feelings are about Windows, that is generally what Windows gives you. Added to this is the sheer amount of hardware and software support for Windows. These are factors that cause people to stay with Windows, along with inertia.
What I'm saying is that the typical Mac user (not the new fangled *nix lbackground Mac user who is a totally different beast) does not use such tools and finds them to be abhorrent.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
"I've seen hardened Apple fanatics break down in tears because
they can't figure out how the dock is supposed to work."
For the record, let me acknowledge the correctness of your point: the Mac is now x86 hardware. I was thinking back to two years ago, when I made my last computer purchase.
WOW! You're aware that virtually all Windows programs have supported this since the beginning of time, right? Guess not.
They support it from the unusable DoS command line. They don't support it from within cygwin where you can also use pipe, cat, etc., or if they do I've yet to see anyone who can manage to get it to work properly with a normal shell script.
[That's also not "piping", BTW. I would be surprised if you could cat file.tiff > Photoshop.app, but maybe it's possible.]
You can obviously use pipe and cat and output stdout with the above command, although I don't think the syntax you list would work.
So, Cygwin is really buggy -- just another reason not to use it, I guess.
It is not buggy, it is just not integrated. Cygwin can't know what explorer is doing and vice versus.
I get by with native ports of the GNU tools.
Which is great for those that exist, but it still doesn't let them work seamlessly with other apps or make it easier to script them via the CLI.
the scriptablity of the software like Photoshop and MS Office is usually identical between the Windows and Mac versions.
I can script the mac versions via the CLI using a dozen languages. I can, without writing a line of code, script it via Automator. The mac version has Applescript hooks. What exactly makes that on par with the Windows version?
Agreed. But it has very little to do with Unix.
Who said anything about Unix? We were discussing the choice of Windows over the Mac platform for professional graphics and scripting.
Considering that most graphic designers don't know much about networking, scripting or coding, they tend to prefer the Mac.
I find this an ironic statement; the reason I "switched" from PC + FreeBSD to MacOSX a couple years ago is that I finally had a platform that could run office apps while at the same time I could do my networking, scripting, and coding work. Your argument may have made sense prior to MacOS X, but that doesn't make much sense now. If you go to major computer networking forums (e.g., IETF, NANOG), you see growing number of powerbooks because it's very well suited to doing coding/networking.
As a side note, I was considering swtching to FreeBSD-only or to Linux, but decided to go the somewhat more expensive route so that I didn't have to spend a significant time tinkering with my computer to make it work.
I'm curious what is meant by Linux being "more complete" than the other OSes. I would hazard a guess that Windows has more specialized software options available for it than any other OS.
I can script the mac versions via the CLI using a dozen languages.
And you can do it from the Windows CLI in hundreds of languages. If you want to act like a willful ignoramus about this, I don't really care, you're only making yourself look like an idiot.
Who said anything about Unix?
You did, when you brought up the Mac CLI and Cygwin. Automator is a neat end user tool, but it really has nothing to do with all of the other things you're bringing up. Which is my only point.
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
]And how will that help? If a user is willing to click to run untrusted programs, he is willing to type a password to do so. This will only help in cases where a user does not have the priviledge to install programs
.jpg or smileys. or text attachment. It gives a user a chance to say "Hey, that's not my Aunt Clara's new car--I don't want to do that!" A lot of victims click "open" or "OK" once without thinking and then have second thoughts.
Untrue. This also helps greatly in cases where a trojan horse is masquerading as a
Every bit of barrier to infection is valuable. Malware that can't propagate loses its reason for existing. A good OS gives its operator a second chance. Otherwise, what is the Undo key for?
Fundamentalism is a crime against humanity
> For some people $499 is half a month's income. That's a pretty sizable chunk of money to just throw out willy-nilly.
Depends. If you use it to make money, it's an investment that will pay for itself many times over.
If you use it to surf pr0n, THEN it's a sizeable chunk of money to just throw out willy-nilly.
And you can do it from the Windows CLI in hundreds of languages.
Not out of the box and not with the same functionality or versatility. You can't cat and pipe and string regxps and applications easily using the DOS command line. You can do it on a cygwin command line, but not while interacting with Windows applications. Windows simply does not have a full featured shell that allows this as MS themselves admitted when they announced their wonderful new shell environment for Vista, which has since been indefinitely postponed.
If you want to act like a willful ignoramus about this, I don't really care, you're only making yourself look like an idiot.
This type of petty, ad hominem attack does nothing to bolster the credibility of your weak and poorly contrived evasions of my points.
You did, when you brought up the Mac CLI and Cygwin.
Unix is not the only workable command line or way to accomplish the tasks usually performed with it. We're talking about the ability to easily and flexibly script on a platform in such a way that you are interacting with mainstream applications. Windows falls on its face in this particular field, but not because it is not Unix, but because it is not functional.
Automator is a neat end user tool, but it really has nothing to do with all of the other things you're bringing up.
Automator is an alternative way to gain some of the same functionality on the mac, which Windows is lacking.
OK, then you are unintentionally ignorant. Your "points" are nothing but misguided rhetorical hot air. You haven't once demonstrated that one can effectively script mainstream Mac apps from the Unix commandline -- which is the entire crux of your argument. Usless.
You want a point by point argument? Here it is: Wrong. Wrong. You don't know what monad is. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
You haven't once demonstrated that one can effectively script mainstream Mac apps from the Unix commandline -- which is the entire crux of your argument.
I told you how, what more do you want me to ship you a box with some commands in the terminal window for you? Well it is not going to happen. Go try it yourself already if you don't believe me. I'm sure there is a compusa with a mac somewhere in your state.
You want a point by point argument? Here it is: Wrong. Wrong. You don't know what monad is. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
Brilliant. I'm sure your teachers are proud of you boy. Please go read up on the rhetorical method and then, when you know how to address points like a grown up, come on back and we can have an actual discussion instead of your foolishness.
You can open a file from the commandline -- that's your entire argument? Har.
> I'm sure your teachers are proud of you boy.
Yop, they taught me that most people are morons, and it looks like they've been proven right again.
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
Honestly I think this is a bit like telling people to switch from say... Honda to Toyota because there are more Honda's on the road there for there are more auto accidents (thus more fatal accidents) involving Honda automobiles v. Toyota's.
You fucking idiot. Just wipe the disk and restore the OS from the original media. Unless they have a clever way of hacking into the factory-pressed CDs of everyone on the planet, you're just blowing smoke up your own ass.
Fucking tool.
[quote]Also, the Mac interface is an abomination. A hodgepodge of totally different (but equally hideous) skins, blurry fonts, and whizz-bang effects that do nothing but slow down any attempt at serious work.[/quote] Not to start a flame war (and I wouldn't say I'm against windows entirely, there's one that dualboots Gentoo sitting right next to me).. But that's my exact opinion of the Windows interface (minus the whizz-bang effects, yeah, those get a bit annoying). For example, whenever you install any piece of software from a vendor other than Microsoft, it breaks so many HIG rules it could make me cry.. Different colours, strange fonts, Weird-shaped windows, anything you can find.. I mean, it's not ALWAYS bad design (I like how Steam looks in Windows), but how long can a person actually STAND the default blue appearance? I feel like I'm using that "Toy Factory" theme for Mozilla browsers. Except in Windows, your only other options are the sorta-okay silver, the classic style, or Olive green (and many people hate that). Seriously, even the software performs this way.. Ever put a Logitech disc in the drive, avoided throwing up at how it looked, installed it (without the installer crashing), then tried to print with a non-logitech printer? Well, probably not. Seriously, though; if the software isn't BY Microsoft, it feels like spyware. Especially how software installs crap all over the registry.. I just HATE hunting down keys the installer forgot to remove, noticing traces of their software all over a day later.. Not everybody considers a clean install a good way to get rid of software. Of course, there are parts of OS X I really HATE.. Dashboard (looked like a neat feature in previews and screenshots.. turns out it really sucks), Spotlight (I thought this was supposed to be fast.. not just HANG there if I add in another search term), and Finder (It's just terrible). But, to each their own. If using windows works better for you.. doesn't make sense for anyone to tell you to bend over backwards and use a different OS.
You are also forgetting about professional software applications, stuff that businesses depend upon daily. A handful of them exists as native executables for Mac (Adobe primarily.) What about tons of Autodesk stuff, CATIA, ProEngineer, SolidWorks, PADS, Xilinx ISE and PlanAhead, ISP Lever, Keil compilers, IAR compilers, Synplicity products, Modelsim, Electronic Workbench, Microwave Office, CST or Ansoft, SINDA/FLUINT, Ansys ... hardly any of these have Mac ports, and they depend on native execution because they require tremendous CPU power to do their job.
Any one of these apps will easily cost 10x more than a box to run it on. The app defines the computer, not the other way around. And when you are forced to have 20 Wintel boxes, and have no particular reason to buy a Mac, which will you standardize on?
I should have specified, I meant home users. Business users, of course, are often locked into Windows by their software.
Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
It's possibly to write a virus in perl, but harder to get a user to run the virus written in perl.
In most cases to get the perl in a place where a user can run the virus, you need some initial code that manages to install that file where it will run. That code typically uses binary exploits to inject the file somewhere "unexpectedly".
Now another possibility is that you try to use the Perl code to exploit some system resource that is exploitable. You face the same problem though, the Perl code is trying to inject a binary payload and as such has to include binary specific to a processor.
You could possibly have a simple perl script that you convinced the user to download and run but then it couldn't really do much - it could mess with the users files but that;s not what exploits and malware are doing today. They are embedding themselves in the system and setting up servers, for all that you need elevated privileges.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
In my experience, the people that switch tend to be the ones that know someone else that has switched. It took me almost two years of listening to my mother whine and moan about her PC and then "don't tell me about your mac, I don't want to hear it, I LIKE my PC!". Ya, sounds like you're really loving it.
Then she got hit by three major viruses in 6 months, paying techs hundreds each time to fix it. (and she was downright religious with her antivirus software) Completely fed-up, she finally switched. First 2 months she hated it, and you know I heard every word. It took her the next half year to relearn old habits. Then it occurred to her, every thing she hated about her PC was a non-issue with her new computer. Now every time the discussion comes up all she can say is why didn't I do this sooner?
That's the tough one to convert, the one that is so stuck in the rut that anything else is going to be a major hassel. Switching is a much bigger deal for the computer-illiterate because they have a hard time learning anything computer, and dread having to go back to square one with a new system. They are horribly afraid of needing several months of time to re-learn things.
Then a funny thing happened. She's in a rather large social circle, and her friends kept stopping over and noticing the new iMac on her desk. Now many of these people are more interested in good looking computers than good running computers, but in this case they saw both. With a few words from a trusted 'switcher', many of them now have an iMac of their own. At least a few of these converts have converted more people that they know.
I find it astonishing that I have been responsible for maybe six people switching to mac, and yet my mother, the computer novice and long-standing windows advocate, has probably been responsible for over 20 switches in just the last year.
So, it takes a switcher to make a switcher.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
If IE had a robust (and proven) security model, or microsoft had any idea how to design user interfaces, your "only an idiot" argument might hold water. But here's a news flash -- there are plenty of intelligent people who have little idea about what an activeX control is, or for that fact 20 other terms which are required reading for a user to effectively address security on an unmanaged (i.e. not centrally managed) windows box. All the valid arguments against macs given (sole source, sometimes cutsypants interface, lousy server performance at scale, low price/performance ratio) it's pretty hard to argue that they are not, in fact, more secure out of the box.
Perhaps it's time for the geek community to act proactively by writing a piece of benign "malware" that does nothing more than pop up system modal dialog every ten minutes that says "ALERT! Total Fuck-up In Charge Of A Computer! ALERT!. I am a piece of malware that got on to your computer because you are a complete and utter piece of smegma who shouldn't be allowed to wipe your own backside, let alone operate a complex piece of technology. And the fact that I arrived because you clicked on an EMAIL attachment whose name had the word "tits" in it probably means you are also infected with countless other horrid little programs. These not only make your computer run nearly as badly as the shitty collection of ganglia between your ears, but also waste internet bandwidth and countless other peoples' time and money by continuously sending spam, including the spam that contains this program, which all the people in your EMAIL and instant messaging contact lists have received by now. These are also likely to be accomplished players of the pink oboe, because nobody with an IQ above that of expanded polystyrene would associate with an arsehole like you, so they will obediently click on any EMAIL attachment with the word "tits" in its name, thereby ensuring that I eventually infect lots and lots and lots of other idiots.
Oh, and by the way, I can be removed by deleting C:\fuckup-alert.exe. but you won't know how to do that, so you're stuck with me. And if by some accident of fate you have access to someone with the sort of advanced computer knowledge necessary for deleting a file, you'll probably just get infected again when one of your cretin friends sends you the same EMAIL with the same attachment that put me here in the first place. Which you will of course click on, because it has the word "tits" in it, and idiots like you never learn."
I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
"The problem is that Apple is likely NEVER going to open up and let third parties make Apple-compatible motherboards and processors."
Lots of people already make Apple-compatible processors and motherboards, because Apple now use the same components as everyone else. The only thing unique about today's Macs is the Apple logo, the case design, and the fact that they are permitted (not capable of, but permitted) to run MacOS, Internally, they're effectively identical to a whole bunch of other stuff out there, much of which would be quite capable of running it without even needing any special drivers. This is why Apple are trying to use DRM to tie various bits to their own hardware, because without it, most similarly specified computers would run MacOS quite happily. This was not of course the case with their pre-Intel systems, which had no need for OS-level DRM to ensure that MacOS wouldn't run on arbitrary IBM PC descendants.
NB: no criticism of Apple intended here. MacOS is theirs, and they can do whatever they like with it, including using DRM to ensure that it runs only on "authorised" machines.
I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
There were true viruses that preyed on pre-OS X Macs. Nowhere near the (then) DOS problem, but significantly greater than zero. That was with much less connectivity and a smaller user base than now (although the floppy vector has gone away). The notion that Macs don't provide the critical mass to propagate a virus is simply not credible.
I paid the going retail price for a Windows screen reader and got a free Unix computer!
While I agree with your "Good OS" vs. "Good for ME OS" argument, the rest of what you said reflects a total lack of understanding of why people use Mac OS, particularly for graphics work.
I am a photographer and graphic artist, but I am also a programmer. I hold a BS in computer science and am pursuing an MFA in photography. In addition to taking offense at your rampant generalization that graphics people "simply have great eyes and know how to use their apps", I also feel that what you're missing is the fact that all of the tools that we graphics people use simply run better in MacOS. Not taking into account the fact that Adobe has yet to come out with Intel versions of any of its mac programs (I think we might be waiting a while for those; Adobe's codebase is ginormous), Photoshop and Illustrator--the applications that I use most often when doing non-web related graphical work--have always performed much faster in MacOS than in Windows, all the way back to the earliest versions that supported both. This is because the capabilities of macs, all the way down to the hardware, have traditionally been geared towards hardcore graphical work. The very first thing out of Apple's marketing department when they first began releasing processors with FPUs on-board was "Hey, this'll make your photoshop filters work." Same story with AltiVec and multiple processors. When Apple introduced FireWire on their machines, PC manufacturers scoffed, but Apple's line was "Hey, this is a super-fast bus you can connect digital video recorders and hard drives up to." The primary benefactor, again, was graphics and video professionals.
To respond to your "most graphic designers don't know much about networking, scripting or coding, they tend to prefer the Mac" comment, I again have to take exception to that. Though I know a tremendous amount about networking, scripting, and coding, I don't need to constantly network, script, or code in order to get things done when I'm on my mac. In Windows-land my machine (virtualized in Parallels) freaks out if its DHCP lease runs out or if I want to connect to one of my macs for any purpose whatsoever. God forbid I should want to use windows networking to transfer files onto it. Meanwhile my mac, even when I'm on a network mostly consisting of PCs, just automatically does what its supposed to do and requires very little intervention on my part. When I need to script something super-simple, there's applescript. When I need to script something more advanced, there's a rich command-line interface along with perl, python, and a host of other interpreted and/or compiled languages for which I've added support.
What I've always loved about MacOS X particularly is that I can interact with it on two separate levels. The graphic artist within me can have an intuitive interface and a system whose hand I don't need to hold all day long to keep it running, and the hardcore programmer within me has a host of well-designed development tools and an extremely capable command line. When I want a system that's optimized down to the source code level, I have my gentoo linux webserver.
You might say that what I've said above makes me less knowledgeable than you, but you're wrong; it means that I don't enjoy having to worry myself as much as you do.
Man you read me totally wrong. I think we have far more in common than you might think. In general I'm just frustrated that there aren't more people like me in computing. I'm primarily a musician/videographer. For a long time I assumed that most of the artistic types became computer "geeks" because those are the tools of today. But when posting here on Slashdot I rarely find anyone who has a primary interest in the arts and a very strong but secondary interest in computers. It sounds like you are one of those people as am I. Saying that, I need to point out that you and I are rarities. So you can't say that you reflect the typical Mac user any more than I can say that I reflect the typical Linux user.
I didn't mean to offend anyone with my post. But I find it particularly interesting that you singled out this comment: "simply have great eyes and know how to use their apps" as offensive. Yes, it is a generalization which implies that it applies to a lot of Mac users. As I said above, you are not a typical Mac user. Especially if we're talking pre-Mac OS X. The new breed of Mac user that appreciates the command line, can write scripts and understands the network is not the same as the old Mac user who tended to be a substandard user. Nothing wrong with being a substandard user since it means that they don't really care about how the computer works or why, they just want it to work. That applies to a large part of the computer user base on both Windows and Mac sides.
Next, I am well aware that the Mac consistently outperforms a Windows box for certain graphical applications... for a while. Then the Windows versions surpass the Mac when newer bigger boxes come out on the Wintel side. And it's always a constant game of catch-up so that you can be sure your filter finishes in 24 seconds instead of 28 on either platform. Yes, those seconds can add up, but most users don't care until more power is available to them. And now considering that the Mac is Intel based, I don't think you'll see much difference between a Mac and a high-end Dell or HP graphics worksation. Apple doesn't hold any kind of special voodoo on performance. Yes, they tend to be more advanced than their PC counterparts when it comes to new busses or things like EFI. But again, most users (especially graphic designers who aren't technically inclined) don't care about those things.
Regarding this statement to which I *could* take offense to: "You might say that what I've said above makes me less knowledgeable than you, but you're wrong; it means that I don't enjoy having to worry myself as much as you do". You're assuming that I worry myself about something. I don't. My systems might take a little more work to configure intially, but once set up they are as reliable as what any Mac or Windows users would claim if not moreso. In general, in ANY OS if you know what you're doing and you like the platform you're on things "just work" for you. For me that's Linux. I'm sure I could do the same if I switched to all Macs at home, but frankly I can't afford to have a farm of Macs at home. I *can* afford to have a farm of AMD boxes at home though. And that comes in rather handy for me when I want to render some video with my Cinelerra render farm. However, I don't take offense at your comment because you obviously had no idea what you were talking about when you made it. Now that you have a better idea of what I'm about and how similar we are perhaps you might feel a little better about my original post.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
You're right. I do feel a little better. While both of us may in fact be rarities for our particular platforms, I think that's changing rapidly. Since OS X came out, Apple has been seriously catering to scientific computing—which is a significant portion of the educational market in which they previously couldn't compete reliably. At the time though Apple had a CEO whose marketing message of choice seemed to be that macs aren't toys. That alienated a significant portion of the populace who wanted computers that could be workhorses some of the time, toys the rest of the time. My bottom line in any PC vs. Mac argument has always been that if you've never really used a computer before, your best option is to spend the little extra money on a mac because it's a lot easier to start out on. People who've used Windows forever get frustrated with macs because they try to use the same interface and operational paradigms they're accustomed to on PCs, but to a completely naive user the windows environment can be pretty confusing. Until I got a job fixing them I never really understood PCs; even now I'm pretty frustrated whenever I have to do anything involved on one.
I do use Linux, too. I have an old Powermac G3 tower and an old Powerbook G3 that both run Gentoo linux and never boot into OS X because they're too old to handle the newest versions. I'm much more typical in my linux usage in that I use the tower as a simple dev server and the powerbook . . . well I dont use that one so much just yet.
The cost issue you bring up is becoming less and less of an issue, too. As I was working at my University repairing them all the time, I think more and more people are recognizing that $300 for a Dell may buy you a computer, but it doesn't buy you a reliable one. I only ran across a couple of people who had one who were dying to buy another. Same story with other discount manufacturers. I'm presuming your AMD boxen are custom built, which is by far the cheapest way to do it and the best (since you know what you've got under the hood when you're looking for drivers and/or kernel modules) but for most of your local gentry it's not really a possibility.
Finally, regarding the great eyes remark, maybe you meant it to sound less derogatory than it looked to me when I first read it. I do recognize that I'm an anomaly in the linux, UNIX, and Mac worlds, but I do think that there are a lot more people like me, and like you, out there.
I wish I could find more people who are more like you and like me because they'd probably be more fun to hang out with and talk shop. I get pretty frustrated talking to "geeks" who don't get visual or auditory aesthetics. What better way is there to learn technology than to use it as a tool to actually make original and creative work? I honestly don't think using them for generic business tools is the best way... But that's just me. Thanks for the civil response.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o