You can't truly blame Milw0rm for a person being depressed and committing suicide.
However, reading their security notes on it, they did hear back from the developer...they simply declared that it didn't happen fast enough and decided unilaterally that the "Vendor appears uninterested".
I have very mixed feelings on security firms releasing exploits to the public just to try and get results. In my (admittedly limited) experience, more bad has come from releasing exploits publicly than good.
I was afraid that the most famous vaporware in the history of computing was about to really evaporate. Now that this is going on, this should keep hopes alive for at least another five years.
Seconded. I think that using CC is a great idea, but the problem is that there are a LOT of software pirates who simply have no intention of every paying for anything unless they can help it.
Some software is "pirated" by some who legitimately want to try something out before buying it. They are not the problem. The problem are the ones who steal. Using CC won't address that problem.
I was personally very suprised at how easy it was for me to reset a password in Ubuntu.
My linux juju was pretty dusty at the time (I manage a Windows network, which takes all the fun out of playing with computers in my spare time). But a friend of mine brought me a Ubuntu computer that was property of a deceased relative and asked me to reset the password so he could get his relative's data off. I was able to boot to a Live CD, mount the hard drive into a temp folder, use "chroot" to change my root folder to the one on the hard drive, use "passwd" to reset their password. Done deal. Took me 10 minutes and again I reference that my Linux juju was very dusty.
I'm not bragging...there's tons of users (most of them here, probably) better at Linux than me. But having physical access to the system made it no problem.
With Windows, you just get a copy of "Ultimate Boot CD" and use the password reset utility.
As noted previously, though, changing password won't get you access to encrypted data.
Sorry...I just feel that this is a "non-story". More stuff to try and bash on Microsoft unreasonably. There's plenty of things you can beat up Microsoft over without having to make some more up.
Sounds like you've met some rude creationists. While I stand by my comment that being a creationist doesn't make someone "snide" I definitely agree that there are snide creationists...just like there's snide people in all walks of life.
Even as a creationist, I get annoyed with those who simply repeat what they've heard over and over again, instead of original thinking and true discussion.
I enjoy good discussions with folks with opposing viewpoints. Doesn't mean I'm ever out to change anyone's mind...I enjoy learning why other people believe the way they do. Otherwise life would be boring, wouldn't it?
If all someone does is spend time around people who agree with them in everything, they will never improve themself. Being willing to discuss without becoming either defensive or combative is a valuable skill that's seriously lacking in the world. Gasp...even here at/. !
While I am a creationist, I think Stephen Hawking is probably one of the ten smartest people on the planet (ever). And I'm probably being conservative with that estimate.
Jesus never once tried to force His views one anyone. He just answered questions as they were put to Him and let folks make up their own minds. I really liked His style.
I was just providing a counter point to what I thought was an overly-broad painting of creationists.
According to TFA, their software will download random data from BitTorrent to your system to hide what you really wanted to dowload within a cloud of random downloads.
Are you SURE you want to allow random data from BitTorrent to be downloaded onto your computer? There's a LOT of stuff out there that I wouldn't want even the remote chance (e.g. being selected randomly) of having it on my computer.
1) I'm no expert on how the law views reporters' stories (or if a review is considered reporting). Sounds like you're more versed in that area than I am, so I concede the point.
2) I definitely wasn't arguing that it should be removed from fair use. Quite the opposite, in fact. My argument was that this didn't constitute fair use of the material, since fair use usually involves only using a small portion of copyrighted material. He watched the entire flick, thereby (again...my opinion only) removing "fair use" as a defense.
3) My personal feelings (as a computer tech, but no law expert) is that there is no detachment from viewing something from the internet and actively downloading it, then viewing it. Either way, you achieve the same ends...you view files from the internet. Therefore, (again my opinion) he downloaded the file whether he actually kept a copy, redistributed it, or simply watched it once.
4) Good point. Since he didn't actually say how to download it, he may not have helped less tech-savvy folks get the file. But those with a little tech savvy may have read his review then decided that it WAS worth the time to go find it and download it. Just simply telling folks its out there, then telling them it's worth watching can potentially hurt the revenue of the movie, especially now with the economy so tight and folks not wanting to spend money that they don't have to. For a number of folks, once they've seen it, they will simply wait for DVD to get a better copy of it. From that perspective, even a good review of the movie could hurt revenues.
I agree that the reason they gave may have been bogus from a legal perspective, but should have been expected from a media conglomerate perspective.
Not wanting to pick any sort of fight here, but your own argument proves you wrong.
"(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;"
- He works (worked) for a commercial news company...not a nonprofit. His column brings is ad revenue for FOX, and by extension, he used the work to make money.
"(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;"
- It's an unreleased movie from one of the large movie studios.
"(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and"
- He watched the whole frakkin' movie off the internet.
"(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."
- Potentially, he gave a number of people the knowledge they needed to view the movie illegally. Also, by doing so any by reviewing it, he may also have legitimized illegal downloading.
Dude was dumb. Also, if you read the responses to the FA, a number of commenters were happy to see the guy go. He should have known better.
Also of note, though: this will gain him notoriety. He'll have another job by the end of the day. A lot of folks (including me) have never heard of this dude, but we've heard of him now. He's going to get a lot of interviews and we'll see him on TV expressing his views about how he was unfairly fired. Some other news place will then give him a job just to gain a recognizable name. ("There's no such thing as bad publicity")
He was dumb to do it, but he knew what he was doing.
That's actually a great idea. Shame you don't work for Microsoft. Also a shame that since I commented in this thread, I couldn't mod you up even if I hadn't used up my points earlier.
I could see a benefit to the OS recognizing when the limit of applications has been reached, then "freezing" the app that's been idle the longest and "unfreezing" apps dynamically on demand. That would keep resources free while still limiting the number of things a user would have open at any given time. Right now, Windows will cheerfully open as many apps as you try to... including when users are impatient and double-click the same icon five times while it's trying to open.
Also...on the car comment: Again, going out on a limb here, but as a parent of three children who will be reaching driving age very soon, capping their first vehicle at 50 kph or so and keeping them off the freeway and on the less busy roadways for the first year or so would not be such a bad thing.
I know I'm going out on a limb here, but I don't necessarily see this as a bad thing.
Remember: most, if not all, of us here are definitely "power users". We won't even consider running a "starter" version of anything. However, we support a LOT of folks (e.g. family, friends, co-workers) who are not as tech-savvy as we are. How many times have you tried to troubleshoot over the phone for a system that's "running slow" (which is the only description of the problem you get) and you ask "how many applications are you running?" followed by the awkward silence, then a response of "I don't know". Then you finally figure out that they are running 15 things that they don't need to run and you try to talk them through disabling them, etc...
Windows Starter Edition = Starter Windows User.
When they learn the ins and outs of the system, then they can upgrade to more powerful versions.
You also can't tell me that if there wasn't some reg hack or utility that would limit the number of apps that could be run that you wouldn't configure that on your parent's/kid's computers. (There may be something like that, but if there is, I don't know it).
The solution is simple: If you don't like that limitation, then don't buy that version of Windows.
I can think of a couple of users I support that this would definitely simplify things quite a bit.
They crossed the line a long time ago (with Google Desktop originally copying stuff to their servers by default as one example. Data mining Gmail without permission is another).
If you think they are just now crossing the line, you're not paying attention to what Google has been up to.
I don't hold out a *whole* lot of hope that this will lead to anything useful.
However, Spore went WAY to far with DRM (like Sony did with music CDs a couple of years ago) and it does like instances where company cross obvious lines to draw attention to issues like this.
If nothing else, we can at least hope to familiarize those in authority as to how intrusive companies can be with DRM when they are not reigned in.
An important point not really mentioned much is that, from what I can see, this is an increase in the amount that Dell charges to do it FOR you. The right to downgrade still comes with an Ultimate or Business license...you just have to provide your own install media and contact Microsoft's activation hotline to get an install key. At least, that how it was a few weeks back...MS tends to change licensing rules a lot...
Surprise tickets to the Star Trek movie when it comes out and the afternoon off to go see it as a group would probably endear most of them to you for life.
As mentioned in another reply...they are not exotic animals or anything. Treat them as you want to be treated and be honest and respectful and they will be respectful of you as their manager.
I'm currently working for someone younger than me for the first time in my life. However, he is a respectful manager and I respect him and enjoy working for him.
I don't even think he minds me posting to/. occassionally...but just in case, here he comes and I'm outahere...
I agree that you can save power with low-power (standby) modes on your PCs.
However, as a network admin as a mid-sized company, I also have seen loads of frustrations where PCs (both laptops and desktops) don't come out of power save mode cleanly, requiring a reboot. Wake-on-lan is also a great concept, but also pretty buggy (again...in my limited experience trying to implement it). We also have issues where our client systems are using network applications with license pools (e.g. database applications or CAD packages). When a user leaves one of these applications open, then the PC goes into power save mode...it really freaks out when it comes back out of power save mode since the license server thought the system had released the license, but the client still thinks it has a licens in use. This situation usually results in the need to reboot, which frustrates the users to no end.
I set all of our PCs here to lock and send only the monitor into low-power mode after 20 minutes or so. Then we don't have the problems with coming out of power save mode and having locked up or frozen applications (especially the aforementioned network applictions), but still save a good bit of power by allowing the monitor to be turned off automatically.
Anyone have any idea what percentage of power is used by the monitor versus the PC itself? I don't have a clue, but I'd bet it's a pretty good percentage. There's also probably a big difference between CRT monitors and LCD monitors...again, my gut feeling, but I can't cite any numbers.
Speaking from the other side of the fence (as a system admin), I have to agree with your statement with couple of exceptions. Security is perceived as a serious pain in the rear by users. I inherited the network I manage and it's MUCH more secure than it was when I got it. However, there's still a TON of things I would love to do that I'm either not allowed to or am not given the money to do. I was finally allowed to upgrade to a stateful inspection firewall, but wasn't allowed to close outgoing ports as I was the incoming ports. It was decided by higher-ups that they didn't want to cause problems for the users who were not causing problems (therefore leave outgoing stuff open for everyone). It's also very difficult to take away priviledges once they've been given (e.g. "what do you mean I have to manually allow javascript now? Why won't it just work like it did before?") I am extremely strict on incoming traffic and only have a few ports open and then have the traffic directed to the pertinent (hardened) server. Not saying I won't ever get hacked, but I try to protect us here as well as I can and try not to be a tempting target (that's not an invitation to try...!). I am very cautious about dealing with other sysadmins directly because you never know what you'll get. Too many companies don't pay sysadmins enough and they move on to bigger and better after a while (I've been here 16 years now and have been the sysadmin for 7 years). You are also very correct about the software -vs- dedicated hardware firewall. "Ye Average Joe User" doesn't understand the difference. Users just want things to work without having to be bothered by annoying things such as security and when enough of them complain, management tends to listen to them rather than the person they pay to make the system secure. I don't consider myself "brilliant" by any stretch of the imagination, but I sincerely hope I wouldn't qualify as an "incompetent, overpaid screen-looker". Later, -JS
I guess what I should have said was "more dependable" rather than "more secure". Their hardware does run a lot more reliably than Windows machine (in my experience, anyway).
No...no "Kool Aid" lately (although I do love cranapple juice).
I guess I didn't explain very well (I was trying not to be long-winded).
By "closed architecture", what I was meaning to point out is that apple OS runs on Apple hardware only...[sans a hack;-) ].
Anyone can build a Windows machine from any combination of hardware they choose (of widely varying quality), but if you run the Apple OS, you're running it on Apple's hardware. In my view, that's simply more secure out of the box and much less prone to driver problems, etc... that can sometimes introduce additional problems. From a reliability standpoint, it's a good idea on Apple's part. From an expense standpoint (can't help it...I'm a cheapskate) that makes their hardware and systems more expensive. Classic example of "you get what you pay for".
Slashdot Mirror
You can't truly blame Milw0rm for a person being depressed and committing suicide.
However, reading their security notes on it, they did hear back from the developer...they simply declared that it didn't happen fast enough and decided unilaterally that the "Vendor appears uninterested".
I have very mixed feelings on security firms releasing exploits to the public just to try and get results. In my (admittedly limited) experience, more bad has come from releasing exploits publicly than good.
-JJS
This is a relief.
I was afraid that the most famous vaporware in the history of computing was about to really evaporate. Now that this is going on, this should keep hopes alive for at least another five years.
-JJS
BSAtHome,
Seconded. I think that using CC is a great idea, but the problem is that there are a LOT of software pirates who simply have no intention of every paying for anything unless they can help it.
Some software is "pirated" by some who legitimately want to try something out before buying it. They are not the problem. The problem are the ones who steal. Using CC won't address that problem.
-JJS
The few times I've tried messaging from my cell phone, my thumbs cramp after about 50 characters, so the "limitation" never affects me.
I was personally very suprised at how easy it was for me to reset a password in Ubuntu.
My linux juju was pretty dusty at the time (I manage a Windows network, which takes all the fun out of playing with computers in my spare time). But a friend of mine brought me a Ubuntu computer that was property of a deceased relative and asked me to reset the password so he could get his relative's data off. I was able to boot to a Live CD, mount the hard drive into a temp folder, use "chroot" to change my root folder to the one on the hard drive, use "passwd" to reset their password. Done deal. Took me 10 minutes and again I reference that my Linux juju was very dusty.
I'm not bragging...there's tons of users (most of them here, probably) better at Linux than me. But having physical access to the system made it no problem.
With Windows, you just get a copy of "Ultimate Boot CD" and use the password reset utility.
As noted previously, though, changing password won't get you access to encrypted data.
Sorry...I just feel that this is a "non-story". More stuff to try and bash on Microsoft unreasonably. There's plenty of things you can beat up Microsoft over without having to make some more up.
Later,
-JJS
Mangu,
Sounds like you've met some rude creationists. While I stand by my comment that being a creationist doesn't make someone "snide" I definitely agree that there are snide creationists...just like there's snide people in all walks of life.
Even as a creationist, I get annoyed with those who simply repeat what they've heard over and over again, instead of original thinking and true discussion.
I enjoy good discussions with folks with opposing viewpoints. Doesn't mean I'm ever out to change anyone's mind...I enjoy learning why other people believe the way they do. Otherwise life would be boring, wouldn't it?
If all someone does is spend time around people who agree with them in everything, they will never improve themself. Being willing to discuss without becoming either defensive or combative is a valuable skill that's seriously lacking in the world. Gasp...even here at /. !
While I am a creationist, I think Stephen Hawking is probably one of the ten smartest people on the planet (ever). And I'm probably being conservative with that estimate.
Jesus never once tried to force His views one anyone. He just answered questions as they were put to Him and let folks make up their own minds. I really liked His style.
I was just providing a counter point to what I thought was an overly-broad painting of creationists.
-JJS
"He will still answer the dumbest questions from any snide creationist..."
You do realize that there are snide believers in evolution, also...right? Just being a creationist doesn't make someone "snide".
Not looking for an argument, by any means...just pointing that out.
Okay...
According to TFA, their software will download random data from BitTorrent to your system to hide what you really wanted to dowload within a cloud of random downloads.
Are you SURE you want to allow random data from BitTorrent to be downloaded onto your computer? There's a LOT of stuff out there that I wouldn't want even the remote chance (e.g. being selected randomly) of having it on my computer.
Just sayin'.
-JJS
PIBM,
You make some good points. :-)
1) I'm no expert on how the law views reporters' stories (or if a review is considered reporting). Sounds like you're more versed in that area than I am, so I concede the point.
2) I definitely wasn't arguing that it should be removed from fair use. Quite the opposite, in fact. My argument was that this didn't constitute fair use of the material, since fair use usually involves only using a small portion of copyrighted material. He watched the entire flick, thereby (again...my opinion only) removing "fair use" as a defense.
3) My personal feelings (as a computer tech, but no law expert) is that there is no detachment from viewing something from the internet and actively downloading it, then viewing it. Either way, you achieve the same ends...you view files from the internet. Therefore, (again my opinion) he downloaded the file whether he actually kept a copy, redistributed it, or simply watched it once.
4) Good point. Since he didn't actually say how to download it, he may not have helped less tech-savvy folks get the file. But those with a little tech savvy may have read his review then decided that it WAS worth the time to go find it and download it. Just simply telling folks its out there, then telling them it's worth watching can potentially hurt the revenue of the movie, especially now with the economy so tight and folks not wanting to spend money that they don't have to. For a number of folks, once they've seen it, they will simply wait for DVD to get a better copy of it. From that perspective, even a good review of the movie could hurt revenues.
I agree that the reason they gave may have been bogus from a legal perspective, but should have been expected from a media conglomerate perspective.
-JJS
PIBM,
Not wanting to pick any sort of fight here, but your own argument proves you wrong.
"(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;"
- He works (worked) for a commercial news company...not a nonprofit. His column brings is ad revenue for FOX, and by extension, he used the work to make money.
"(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;"
- It's an unreleased movie from one of the large movie studios.
"(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and"
- He watched the whole frakkin' movie off the internet.
"(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."
- Potentially, he gave a number of people the knowledge they needed to view the movie illegally. Also, by doing so any by reviewing it, he may also have legitimized illegal downloading.
Dude was dumb. Also, if you read the responses to the FA, a number of commenters were happy to see the guy go. He should have known better.
Also of note, though: this will gain him notoriety. He'll have another job by the end of the day. A lot of folks (including me) have never heard of this dude, but we've heard of him now. He's going to get a lot of interviews and we'll see him on TV expressing his views about how he was unfairly fired. Some other news place will then give him a job just to gain a recognizable name. ("There's no such thing as bad publicity")
He was dumb to do it, but he knew what he was doing.
-JJS
"Is Shell short sighted...?"
Say that five times fast.
Sloth,
Point taken. I've think I've just proven about how I am most definitely not a software engineer. Thanks for bringing me back to Earth.
I forgot the old adage that it's better to keep my mouth shut and let people think I'm and idiot than to open my mouth and remove all doubt.
Regards.
Mike,
That's actually a great idea. Shame you don't work for Microsoft. Also a shame that since I commented in this thread, I couldn't mod you up even if I hadn't used up my points earlier.
I could see a benefit to the OS recognizing when the limit of applications has been reached, then "freezing" the app that's been idle the longest and "unfreezing" apps dynamically on demand. That would keep resources free while still limiting the number of things a user would have open at any given time. Right now, Windows will cheerfully open as many apps as you try to... including when users are impatient and double-click the same icon five times while it's trying to open.
Also...on the car comment: Again, going out on a limb here, but as a parent of three children who will be reaching driving age very soon, capping their first vehicle at 50 kph or so and keeping them off the freeway and on the less busy roadways for the first year or so would not be such a bad thing.
Cheers.
I know I'm going out on a limb here, but I don't necessarily see this as a bad thing.
Remember: most, if not all, of us here are definitely "power users". We won't even consider running a "starter" version of anything. However, we support a LOT of folks (e.g. family, friends, co-workers) who are not as tech-savvy as we are. How many times have you tried to troubleshoot over the phone for a system that's "running slow" (which is the only description of the problem you get) and you ask "how many applications are you running?" followed by the awkward silence, then a response of "I don't know".
Then you finally figure out that they are running 15 things that they don't need to run and you try to talk them through disabling them, etc...
Windows Starter Edition = Starter Windows User.
When they learn the ins and outs of the system, then they can upgrade to more powerful versions.
You also can't tell me that if there wasn't some reg hack or utility that would limit the number of apps that could be run that you wouldn't configure that on your parent's/kid's computers. (There may be something like that, but if there is, I don't know it).
The solution is simple: If you don't like that limitation, then don't buy that version of Windows.
I can think of a couple of users I support that this would definitely simplify things quite a bit.
They crossed the line a long time ago (with Google Desktop originally copying stuff to their servers by default as one example. Data mining Gmail without permission is another).
If you think they are just now crossing the line, you're not paying attention to what Google has been up to.
Just my $0.02.
I think the guy that wrote this article is out to get me.
I heard him talking about it just a moment ago...
I don't hold out a *whole* lot of hope that this will lead to anything useful.
However, Spore went WAY to far with DRM (like Sony did with music CDs a couple of years ago) and it does like instances where company cross obvious lines to draw attention to issues like this.
If nothing else, we can at least hope to familiarize those in authority as to how intrusive companies can be with DRM when they are not reigned in.
-JJS
Sorry...but, "huh?"
Tools-Windows update. Or it is updated automagically if you have auto updates turned on.
I did RTFA, but I still didn't understand that comment.
-JJS
Wasn't this the original bill that was sponsored by a young freshman senator named Ted Stevens?
An important point not really mentioned much is that, from what I can see, this is an increase in the amount that Dell charges to do it FOR you. The right to downgrade still comes with an Ultimate or Business license...you just have to provide your own install media and contact Microsoft's activation hotline to get an install key.
At least, that how it was a few weeks back...MS tends to change licensing rules a lot...
Surprise tickets to the Star Trek movie when it comes out and the afternoon off to go see it as a group would probably endear most of them to you for life.
As mentioned in another reply...they are not exotic animals or anything. Treat them as you want to be treated and be honest and respectful and they will be respectful of you as their manager.
I'm currently working for someone younger than me for the first time in my life. However, he is a respectful manager and I respect him and enjoy working for him.
I don't even think he minds me posting to /. occassionally...but just in case, here he comes and I'm outahere...
I agree that you can save power with low-power (standby) modes on your PCs.
However, as a network admin as a mid-sized company, I also have seen loads of frustrations where PCs (both laptops and desktops) don't come out of power save mode cleanly, requiring a reboot. Wake-on-lan is also a great concept, but also pretty buggy (again...in my limited experience trying to implement it). We also have issues where our client systems are using network applications with license pools (e.g. database applications or CAD packages). When a user leaves one of these applications open, then the PC goes into power save mode...it really freaks out when it comes back out of power save mode since the license server thought the system had released the license, but the client still thinks it has a licens in use. This situation usually results in the need to reboot, which frustrates the users to no end.
I set all of our PCs here to lock and send only the monitor into low-power mode after 20 minutes or so. Then we don't have the problems with coming out of power save mode and having locked up or frozen applications (especially the aforementioned network applictions), but still save a good bit of power by allowing the monitor to be turned off automatically.
Anyone have any idea what percentage of power is used by the monitor versus the PC itself? I don't have a clue, but I'd bet it's a pretty good percentage. There's also probably a big difference between CRT monitors and LCD monitors...again, my gut feeling, but I can't cite any numbers.
Later,
JS
Hey, Poltras,
Speaking from the other side of the fence (as a system admin), I have to agree with your statement with couple of exceptions.
Security is perceived as a serious pain in the rear by users. I inherited the network I manage and it's MUCH more secure than it was when I got it. However, there's still a TON of things I would love to do that I'm either not allowed to or am not given the money to do. I was finally allowed to upgrade to a stateful inspection firewall, but wasn't allowed to close outgoing ports as I was the incoming ports. It was decided by higher-ups that they didn't want to cause problems for the users who were not causing problems (therefore leave outgoing stuff open for everyone).
It's also very difficult to take away priviledges once they've been given (e.g. "what do you mean I have to manually allow javascript now? Why won't it just work like it did before?")
I am extremely strict on incoming traffic and only have a few ports open and then have the traffic directed to the pertinent (hardened) server.
Not saying I won't ever get hacked, but I try to protect us here as well as I can and try not to be a tempting target (that's not an invitation to try...!).
I am very cautious about dealing with other sysadmins directly because you never know what you'll get. Too many companies don't pay sysadmins enough and they move on to bigger and better after a while (I've been here 16 years now and have been the sysadmin for 7 years).
You are also very correct about the software -vs- dedicated hardware firewall. "Ye Average Joe User" doesn't understand the difference.
Users just want things to work without having to be bothered by annoying things such as security and when enough of them complain, management tends to listen to them rather than the person they pay to make the system secure.
I don't consider myself "brilliant" by any stretch of the imagination, but I sincerely hope I wouldn't qualify as an "incompetent, overpaid screen-looker".
Later,
-JS
Okay...point conceded.
I guess what I should have said was "more dependable" rather than "more secure". Their hardware does run a lot more reliably than Windows machine (in my experience, anyway).
-JS
Hi, Anonymous.
;-) ].
No...no "Kool Aid" lately (although I do love cranapple juice).
I guess I didn't explain very well (I was trying not to be long-winded).
By "closed architecture", what I was meaning to point out is that apple OS runs on Apple hardware only...[sans a hack
Anyone can build a Windows machine from any combination of hardware they choose (of widely varying quality), but if you run the Apple OS, you're running it on Apple's hardware. In my view, that's simply more secure out of the box and much less prone to driver problems, etc... that can sometimes introduce additional problems. From a reliability standpoint, it's a good idea on Apple's part. From an expense standpoint (can't help it...I'm a cheapskate) that makes their hardware and systems more expensive. Classic example of "you get what you pay for".
No offense (or confusion) intended.
-JS