I refuted your point that Apple's policies are the same as Walmart's. That's got everything to do with your point -- in fact, it was your sole point. I stated that this was obvious, and that you Mac fanboys tend to disregard the obvious when it suits your propaganda. You disregarded the obvious yet again in your reply.
And you know I'm right. You didn't even come up with the Walmart angle yourself. You're just harping on with fraudulent advertising, hoping that it will stick. I'll let you know what sticks: Apple fanboys are a despickable bunch of frauds.
I put the word sell in italics just for you. It's different from Walmart in that Walmart doesn't force you to give your porn away for free if you want to reach their customers. As I said, you fanboys tend to disregard the obvious. Once again, you proved my point.
You're a bunch of disgustingly dishonest marketing types.
It's different because Apple has a monopoly on selling content to the iOS devices. Walmart does not have a monopoly on magazines. This is blatantly obvious to everyone who isn't a through-and-through fanboy. It really amazes me how you idiots go out of your way to defend everything Apple does. And 5, "insightful", as well. Yes, you're a cult.
Since I'm looking for a new phone these days, I happen to read a fair few mobile phone forums, and I can guarantee you that Android phones are very popular in countries with no AT&T at all (and Iphone available through most carriers). The last few months, far more popular than the Iphone, even though the press has been constantly oohing and aahing about everything Apple for a very long time. I was just reading a thread started by a phone salesman who complained that the only thing the Iphone customers care about is fashion... with the new backplate being a more important feature than the display.
Having said that, it's a bit silly how the mobile world is turning into a new Atari vs Amiga computer war, when there are many other interesting options out there. Samsung's Wave (Bada) looks like a very good deal (with a slightly lower-res screen with far better contrast than the Retina display, for instance), Nokia's N900 (Maemo) has a strong geek following, in addition to all the good phones on the still pretty functional Symbian platform.
Right. But note that the linked article is pre-release hype. Windows 3.0 was going to be good. I saw even worse hype for Google's ChromeOS even before it was officially announced, though. Not by fanboys, but by "journalists" trying to sell "news" by making it up. It's just an attempt at drumming up enthusiasm for "the next big thing" so that readers will be want to read more about it later.
Probably, but although SGI hardware is readily available and even cheap for the enthusiast, Irix is not. It's actually not easy to get hold of, and SGI isn't helpful at all. So to make use of the fancy old hardware (SGI made nice boxes years before Apple), people tend to be attracted to the alternatives: NetBSD and Linux. An Indy can either be a fancy but inefficient dust collecting device, or a low-end Unix terminal running Linux/BSD. Architecturally, it can't really be a PC. But considering that SGI abandoned Irix for Linux even before they became irrelevant, I suspect the old users feel a bit abandoned themselves.
Enthusing its supporters? MS DOS? Windows 3.0? (I mean, later versions may have had their points, but even Microsoft themselves would only call Windows 3.0 a commercial success.)
To be fair to the Jobsian cult, though, the most rabid extremists I've ever come across are old-skool SGI admins. Don't even try to suggest putting Linux on ancient SGI hardware; according to sacred lore, it will turn a venerable super computer into a PC. Then they'll send you an angry email as well, just to make sure the point gets across.
Potentially, it can, depending on man hours (Flash is no less open that Apple's HTML5). Although non-Apple approved hardware "can" access iTunes, Apple actively makes sure it can't. I suspect you already knew this, too. So fuck integrity, eh?
Not at all. Flash is available for several platforms; iTunes only for Windows and Mac. Flash is a resource hog on OS X and Linux, iTunes is a resource hog on Windows (and possibly on OS X too, but you can't properly remove it, so you would never know). Flash content can be accessed by other clients (gnash and that new plug-in), iTunes actively locks out clients not approved by Apple (like Palm Pre). iTunes is designed to make it difficult for the consumer to switch to less expensive hardware, Flash in't.
You're being dishonest. Your original claim was spyware specifically. There's no more spyware on Linux than on OS X (~0), no more viruses, and no more trojans. In addition, you can't pretend a 10% desktop userbase (a gross overestimate: it's between 5% and 8%) equals a bigger share on the server, which is the main attack vector for Linux; unattended servers getting rooted. OS X is entirely irrelevant on the server, whereas Linux is pretty big. NextStep was never used on the server, btw. So, let's say Linux is rooted more often than OS X -- for computers open to attack from the internet, Linux has 172 times the installed base of OS X.
Also, I haven't said there is spyware on the Mac. In fact, I've said there's none, and that there's nothing special to it. You still haven't pointed out any spyware for Linux.
Please quote where I said it was, in terms of being somehow immune or otherwise significantly resistant, technologically, to spyware, trojans or rootkits. All that I said is that Mac OS X doesn't need antivirus software because it doesn't really have a malware (of any type) problem.
In your first comment of this thread: "[It's exceptional] Due to the notably disproportionate lack of spyware on the Mac." My argument is simply: It isn't notable or disproportionate at all. OS X is no exception. Linux does have more rootkits (it's both older and much bigger on the server than OS X; the typical Linux install running services open to the net), but no more spyware, and fewer trojans (due to less (pirate) software being downloaded from dubious sources).
So: Your claim is that OS X is exceptional. My claim is that 1) it isn't, and 2) neither does it have any special resistance. I can say 2) without you claiming the opposite.
Ah, yes, you and v1 are obviously different people. Sorry about that -- as you seemed to be explaining what v1 had meant to say, I expected you to be him. Still, you don't have a point. There's nothing disproportionate to Mac OS X's lack of spyware -- spyware is pretty much a Windows only thing. So OS X isn't an exception due to a disproportionate lack of spyware. BeOS, Linux, *BSD, OS/2, AmigaOS, Hurd, Plan9, all are just as "few and far between".
Also, this story is about a rootkit. Of course a rootkit can be used for spying, just like it can be used for absolutely everything else, but spyware is so much less. In reality, a rootkit will be installed either on purpose or as a trojan. In the context of this discussion, it has to be discussed as a trojan, which is something AV software should take care of. Like v1 said: protect the users against themselves. OS X offers no particular protection against trojans and does in fact have a real problem with it (use google for OS X + botnet). So, to recapitulate: OS X is nothing special.
You made the claim that OS X was a rare exception to the rule that unlocked hardware (sic) has a virus problem (or actually: that there is "a huge market for antivirus software" for such platforms). Yet this is blatantly untrue: hardly any OS except Windows (and the Amiga, back in the days) has a huge virus problem.
And now you try to make the argument that OS X has little need for anti-virus software due to there being a disproportionate(?) lack of spyware for the platform. Spyware != virus, and a lack of spyware is hardly unique for OS X either.
At any rate, this story has nothing to do with spyware. The root kit can only be installed intentionally or bundled with another program, as a trojan. Mac OS X already has enough of a trojan problem that Mac OS X trojans have been used to create botnets. You fanboys really are a confused and delusional bunch.
"Said books"? And then your only actual example is The Hobbit! You're just another nerd with insecurity problems. Here's a suggestion: if you don't know what you're talking about, just shut the fuck up. Come back when you have something substantial to say, and you may be treated with the respect you long for.
You must be an insecure teenager. When you grow up and get kids, you may notice that some children literature is in fact very good, with far more intriguing characters than you find in the computer games you play today.
It may be distilled, but it's certainly not anything like whisky. For one, whisky doesn't contain any of the residual sugar after fermentation, as sugar isn't evaporated together with alcohol etc., whereas freeze-distilling leaves the sugar in the beer/spirit.
And still, (rimshot) freeze-distilled beer is nothing like whisky. Whisky is brewed without hops, as you probably know. This is just regular beer that's been concentrated by having the water removed.
Slashdot Mirror
I refuted your point that Apple's policies are the same as Walmart's. That's got everything to do with your point -- in fact, it was your sole point. I stated that this was obvious, and that you Mac fanboys tend to disregard the obvious when it suits your propaganda. You disregarded the obvious yet again in your reply.
And you know I'm right. You didn't even come up with the Walmart angle yourself. You're just harping on with fraudulent advertising, hoping that it will stick. I'll let you know what sticks: Apple fanboys are a despickable bunch of frauds.
I put the word sell in italics just for you. It's different from Walmart in that Walmart doesn't force you to give your porn away for free if you want to reach their customers. As I said, you fanboys tend to disregard the obvious. Once again, you proved my point.
You're a bunch of disgustingly dishonest marketing types.
You're a fag. Linux works better on most legacy Macs than OS X does.
It's different because Apple has a monopoly on selling content to the iOS devices. Walmart does not have a monopoly on magazines. This is blatantly obvious to everyone who isn't a through-and-through fanboy. It really amazes me how you idiots go out of your way to defend everything Apple does. And 5, "insightful", as well. Yes, you're a cult.
Since I'm looking for a new phone these days, I happen to read a fair few mobile phone forums, and I can guarantee you that Android phones are very popular in countries with no AT&T at all (and Iphone available through most carriers). The last few months, far more popular than the Iphone, even though the press has been constantly oohing and aahing about everything Apple for a very long time. I was just reading a thread started by a phone salesman who complained that the only thing the Iphone customers care about is fashion ... with the new backplate being a more important feature than the display.
Having said that, it's a bit silly how the mobile world is turning into a new Atari vs Amiga computer war, when there are many other interesting options out there. Samsung's Wave (Bada) looks like a very good deal (with a slightly lower-res screen with far better contrast than the Retina display, for instance), Nokia's N900 (Maemo) has a strong geek following, in addition to all the good phones on the still pretty functional Symbian platform.
Well, perhaps not a cure, but cancer will be a lot more pleasant when you make a game out of it.
Right. But note that the linked article is pre-release hype. Windows 3.0 was going to be good. I saw even worse hype for Google's ChromeOS even before it was officially announced, though. Not by fanboys, but by "journalists" trying to sell "news" by making it up. It's just an attempt at drumming up enthusiasm for "the next big thing" so that readers will be want to read more about it later.
Probably, but although SGI hardware is readily available and even cheap for the enthusiast, Irix is not. It's actually not easy to get hold of, and SGI isn't helpful at all. So to make use of the fancy old hardware (SGI made nice boxes years before Apple), people tend to be attracted to the alternatives: NetBSD and Linux. An Indy can either be a fancy but inefficient dust collecting device, or a low-end Unix terminal running Linux/BSD. Architecturally, it can't really be a PC. But considering that SGI abandoned Irix for Linux even before they became irrelevant, I suspect the old users feel a bit abandoned themselves.
Enthusing its supporters? MS DOS? Windows 3.0? (I mean, later versions may have had their points, but even Microsoft themselves would only call Windows 3.0 a commercial success.)
Apple isn't #1.
To be fair to the Jobsian cult, though, the most rabid extremists I've ever come across are old-skool SGI admins. Don't even try to suggest putting Linux on ancient SGI hardware; according to sacred lore, it will turn a venerable super computer into a PC. Then they'll send you an angry email as well, just to make sure the point gets across.
This is apple.slashdot.org. Does something ever get posted here that isn't an ad?
Potentially, it can, depending on man hours (Flash is no less open that Apple's HTML5). Although non-Apple approved hardware "can" access iTunes, Apple actively makes sure it can't. I suspect you already knew this, too. So fuck integrity, eh?
Not at all. Flash is available for several platforms; iTunes only for Windows and Mac. Flash is a resource hog on OS X and Linux, iTunes is a resource hog on Windows (and possibly on OS X too, but you can't properly remove it, so you would never know). Flash content can be accessed by other clients (gnash and that new plug-in), iTunes actively locks out clients not approved by Apple (like Palm Pre). iTunes is designed to make it difficult for the consumer to switch to less expensive hardware, Flash in't.
You would have a point if the same non-technical customers weren't happily tied to use iTunes.
Dude. Millions of people need quad cores just to play GTA 4.
You're being dishonest. Your original claim was spyware specifically. There's no more spyware on Linux than on OS X (~0), no more viruses, and no more trojans. In addition, you can't pretend a 10% desktop userbase (a gross overestimate: it's between 5% and 8%) equals a bigger share on the server, which is the main attack vector for Linux; unattended servers getting rooted. OS X is entirely irrelevant on the server, whereas Linux is pretty big. NextStep was never used on the server, btw. So, let's say Linux is rooted more often than OS X -- for computers open to attack from the internet, Linux has 172 times the installed base of OS X.
Also, I haven't said there is spyware on the Mac. In fact, I've said there's none, and that there's nothing special to it. You still haven't pointed out any spyware for Linux.
So, to recapitulate: OS X is nothing special.
Please quote where I said it was, in terms of being somehow immune or otherwise significantly resistant, technologically, to spyware, trojans or rootkits. All that I said is that Mac OS X doesn't need antivirus software because it doesn't really have a malware (of any type) problem.
In your first comment of this thread: "[It's exceptional] Due to the notably disproportionate lack of spyware on the Mac." My argument is simply: It isn't notable or disproportionate at all. OS X is no exception. Linux does have more rootkits (it's both older and much bigger on the server than OS X; the typical Linux install running services open to the net), but no more spyware, and fewer trojans (due to less (pirate) software being downloaded from dubious sources).
So: Your claim is that OS X is exceptional. My claim is that 1) it isn't, and 2) neither does it have any special resistance. I can say 2) without you claiming the opposite.
Ah, yes, you and v1 are obviously different people. Sorry about that -- as you seemed to be explaining what v1 had meant to say, I expected you to be him. Still, you don't have a point. There's nothing disproportionate to Mac OS X's lack of spyware -- spyware is pretty much a Windows only thing. So OS X isn't an exception due to a disproportionate lack of spyware. BeOS, Linux, *BSD, OS/2, AmigaOS, Hurd, Plan9, all are just as "few and far between".
Also, this story is about a rootkit. Of course a rootkit can be used for spying, just like it can be used for absolutely everything else, but spyware is so much less. In reality, a rootkit will be installed either on purpose or as a trojan. In the context of this discussion, it has to be discussed as a trojan, which is something AV software should take care of. Like v1 said: protect the users against themselves. OS X offers no particular protection against trojans and does in fact have a real problem with it (use google for OS X + botnet). So, to recapitulate: OS X is nothing special.
You made the claim that OS X was a rare exception to the rule that unlocked hardware (sic) has a virus problem (or actually: that there is "a huge market for antivirus software" for such platforms). Yet this is blatantly untrue: hardly any OS except Windows (and the Amiga, back in the days) has a huge virus problem.
And now you try to make the argument that OS X has little need for anti-virus software due to there being a disproportionate(?) lack of spyware for the platform. Spyware != virus, and a lack of spyware is hardly unique for OS X either.
At any rate, this story has nothing to do with spyware. The root kit can only be installed intentionally or bundled with another program, as a trojan. Mac OS X already has enough of a trojan problem that Mac OS X trojans have been used to create botnets. You fanboys really are a confused and delusional bunch.
How exactly is OS X an exception? If you think OS X has effective protection against trojans and root kits, you're deluding yourself.
"Said books"? And then your only actual example is The Hobbit! You're just another nerd with insecurity problems. Here's a suggestion: if you don't know what you're talking about, just shut the fuck up. Come back when you have something substantial to say, and you may be treated with the respect you long for.
You must be an insecure teenager. When you grow up and get kids, you may notice that some children literature is in fact very good, with far more intriguing characters than you find in the computer games you play today.
Not really, as Harry Potter the film character isn't very good at all.
It may be distilled, but it's certainly not anything like whisky. For one, whisky doesn't contain any of the residual sugar after fermentation, as sugar isn't evaporated together with alcohol etc., whereas freeze-distilling leaves the sugar in the beer/spirit.
And still, (rimshot) freeze-distilled beer is nothing like whisky. Whisky is brewed without hops, as you probably know. This is just regular beer that's been concentrated by having the water removed.