IE is ahead in security(say what you like but vulns are at parity, and IE has support for sandboxing and WIC which FF lacks) and resource usage.
FF wins for flexibility, configurability and extensibility, the things that matter to most people on this site.
Things like speed and standards compliance are becoming irrelevant, as all 4 modern browsers are more than good enough. It's things like interface and how you can extend and configure the browser. In this Chrome is last, then IE, the Opera with Firefox coming in first, which is why it will be in the lead for a while.
WHat I posted was not a troll at all, it was a well formed opinion.
I knew I would be modded troll however because kids like you can't stand any negativee comments towards Apple, however accurate and factual they may be.
And no, Apple is fucking appalling at security. Sorry.
Are you for real? Your attempt at a well formed response goes out the window when you accuse me of trolling from the get-go. This may be news to you, but simply disagreeing with the majority zealot opinion is not trolling.
Now, you ask for citations, and I'm not going to go searching to provide them, but I will be happy to explain to you where you can find them.
Sitation please? If you are going to make such a statement, please site studies and facts
Well now, there are actually quite a lot of studies supporting this, and a quick look on Google will show this. The fact is we have over 20 years of data, and a consistent and reproducible trend where an OS with the largest market share is the most targeted, irrespective of how secure or insecure it may be.If you want, I will find you studies and peer reviewed papers and we can debate them, although I feel that would be a waste of time on my part going by your response thus far.
In fact there is NO direct causal link, and you are abusing the statement without facts and citations. That said, I would agree that I think there is causal link
Having trouble making up your mind?
but saying ONE piece of malware suddenly brings Apple crashing in flames and "zOMG Mac OS X is teh insecurez they will be pwned!" is the worst kind of hyperbole imaginable.
I made no such claim. Please don't put words into my mouth. If you have an argument, let it stand on it's own merits.
I looked for an article yesterday on slashdot and the only article I found was one about how Apple is inviting security experts to look at their system. Sounds like a pretty responsible thing if you ask me, and I found no mention of this yesterday. Perhaps you'd like to review your citations?
Nothing wrong with my citation here. The article you reference is the same article I was referring to. If you read the comments you will see nothing but Microsoft bashing refusing to acknowledge even the possibility that OS X is more insecure than Windows, despite objective evidence and expert testimony. Hence, zealotry.
Again, no citations. You sound like a MS schill. MS still has a poor record, period. Sure it's getting better but it's massive exaggeration to try to say that somehow MS gets a pass because 6 years ago they were utterly shitty shitty shitty, and suddenly now it's okay because they have improved to stinky farty smelly.
I don't think you understand what a citation is, do you? When I said people bashing MS for poor security are living in the past, that is an OPINION. Given that MS have had a pretty stellar security track record for the last 5 years, and certainly NOT worse than their competitors, I stand by my opinion. I can back mine up with evidence and the citations you so obsessively seek, can you?
How odd, Marketshare doesn't seem to have an effect on how secure an operating system is, because 90% marketshare never encouraged Microsoft
Again, putting words into my mouth. I never said that marketshare has an effect on how secure an OS is, or even implied that. Apple has security as aprt of their image, but that is reliant on having a low market share and not being a target. If that changes and they start to become a target, they will have to actually fix their security. Get it?
This is a goddamn fucking TROJAN HORSE!!!
Irrelivant. My post was not specific to this peice of malware, but regarding the general situation of OS X security, marketshare and malware.
Because a user does not have to give explicit permissions. Trojans don't have to run as admin, it depends on what they are trying to do. Simply sending out spam or recording keystrokes doesn't require admin access.
Malware these days is about money. Malware is deployed through distributed attacks such as browser or pdf flaws.
Why spend time developing an exploit that will target at an extreme maximum 10% of the market, when you can spend the same time and effort and target 80% of the market? Given an equal amount of work, would you not choose the option that yeilds a significantly larger ROI?
Incorrect. Regular and consistent updates including out of band when needed. The 2nd most secure browser included with the OS. Basic MAC in place, as well as DEP and ASLR. The introduction of UAC which means far far less people simply running as administrator. Sorry, Windows blows OS X out of the water as far as security is concerned.
As much as people want to think otherwise, there is a direct causal link between marketshare and the amount of malware for a given OS.
The zealotry was on show yesterday in the OS X article where it was stated that OS X is more insecure than windows. This has been known for a long time...due to the lack of marketshare distributed attacks are not prevalent, but due to Apple's shitty security practices it was trivial to take over OS X at any given time with a targeted attack. Have they even gotten around to having full ASLR and DEP yet? No.
People persecuting MS for poor security are living in the past. Windows is now a fine secure OS, while OS X doesn't even have basic protections in place and claims to be secure, simply taking advantage of the fact that they are not targeted as much.
Hopefully as marketshare increases they will take responsibility and secure their OS, if for no other reason than to maintain their image.
My point was that you gave an opinion on build quality, but you are not backing that up with anything except your anecdotal opinion. If the MBP WAS universally regarded as having an above average build quality than you might have a point. As it is their is a great divide on the subject so you don't.
Yes, we can determine build quality objectively be defining metrics and doing comparisons. You did not indicate that you did that, and simply said it was better in the sense that you liked it better. Many people consider Apple to sometimes be of much lower build quality, so until an actual comparison has been done your anecdotes are only a subjective preference.
Comparing specifications is the only objective measure we have. Things like build quality and design are subjective, and while you may think they are objectively better that may be far from the truth, and is quite hard to prove.
By people interested in the advances going on in computers. It's understandable that linux zealots would dismiss interesting research simply because of the company doing said research. Understandable, and sad.
I don't know if you will reply or not, but I sure hope you will.
The problem with saying science has reached a conclusion, is that when I have tried to investigate it it seems there is indeed a scientific consensus, but rather politically motivated. Nowhere is there hard data to support such a consensus nor can the results be reproduced or independently verified.
Slashdot Mirror
Give up the "Hi MR AC!" crap you goddamn fool. Aside from it being sexist, the fact that someone posts anonymously is irrelevant.
Chrome also doesn't let you configure a fucking thing.
When chrome allows for even basic customization, then it might be in the race.
FF wins for flexibility, configurability and extensibility, the things that matter to most people on this site.
Things like speed and standards compliance are becoming irrelevant, as all 4 modern browsers are more than good enough. It's things like interface and how you can extend and configure the browser. In this Chrome is last, then IE, the Opera with Firefox coming in first, which is why it will be in the lead for a while.
Deal with it, instead of using nonstandard retarded imaginary terms.
Honestly, it's looking like Facebook will outlast Google at this point. At least they are innovating....
I knew I would be modded troll however because kids like you can't stand any negativee comments towards Apple, however accurate and factual they may be.
And no, Apple is fucking appalling at security. Sorry.
Your reply is so full of insults, misrepresentations and fallacies that it isn't worth my time to reply too. Wait a second....
Actually, life is integral to the definition of evolution. See, evolution is more than just mutations....
Viruses are not alive, so by definition can't evolve.
Can you explain why there are far fewer exploits for Apache and *nix than for IIS and Windows?
Sure. There isn't.
To Clarify Secunia shows 6 advisories for IIS 7 for 2010 and 33 for Apache 2.2 for 2010
Now, you ask for citations, and I'm not going to go searching to provide them, but I will be happy to explain to you where you can find them.
Sitation please? If you are going to make such a statement, please site studies and facts
Well now, there are actually quite a lot of studies supporting this, and a quick look on Google will show this. The fact is we have over 20 years of data, and a consistent and reproducible trend where an OS with the largest market share is the most targeted, irrespective of how secure or insecure it may be.If you want, I will find you studies and peer reviewed papers and we can debate them, although I feel that would be a waste of time on my part going by your response thus far.
In fact there is NO direct causal link, and you are abusing the statement without facts and citations. That said, I would agree that I think there is causal link
Having trouble making up your mind?
but saying ONE piece of malware suddenly brings Apple crashing in flames and "zOMG Mac OS X is teh insecurez they will be pwned!" is the worst kind of hyperbole imaginable.
I made no such claim. Please don't put words into my mouth. If you have an argument, let it stand on it's own merits.
I looked for an article yesterday on slashdot and the only article I found was one about how Apple is inviting security experts to look at their system. Sounds like a pretty responsible thing if you ask me, and I found no mention of this yesterday. Perhaps you'd like to review your citations?
Nothing wrong with my citation here. The article you reference is the same article I was referring to. If you read the comments you will see nothing but Microsoft bashing refusing to acknowledge even the possibility that OS X is more insecure than Windows, despite objective evidence and expert testimony. Hence, zealotry.
Again, no citations. You sound like a MS schill. MS still has a poor record, period. Sure it's getting better but it's massive exaggeration to try to say that somehow MS gets a pass because 6 years ago they were utterly shitty shitty shitty, and suddenly now it's okay because they have improved to stinky farty smelly.
I don't think you understand what a citation is, do you? When I said people bashing MS for poor security are living in the past, that is an OPINION. Given that MS have had a pretty stellar security track record for the last 5 years, and certainly NOT worse than their competitors, I stand by my opinion. I can back mine up with evidence and the citations you so obsessively seek, can you?
How odd, Marketshare doesn't seem to have an effect on how secure an operating system is, because 90% marketshare never encouraged Microsoft
Again, putting words into my mouth. I never said that marketshare has an effect on how secure an OS is, or even implied that. Apple has security as aprt of their image, but that is reliant on having a low market share and not being a target. If that changes and they start to become a target, they will have to actually fix their security. Get it?
This is a goddamn fucking TROJAN HORSE!!!
Irrelivant. My post was not specific to this peice of malware, but regarding the general situation of OS X security, marketshare and malware.
Good day sir.
Because a user does not have to give explicit permissions. Trojans don't have to run as admin, it depends on what they are trying to do. Simply sending out spam or recording keystrokes doesn't require admin access.
Why spend time developing an exploit that will target at an extreme maximum 10% of the market, when you can spend the same time and effort and target 80% of the market? Given an equal amount of work, would you not choose the option that yeilds a significantly larger ROI?
Incorrect. Regular and consistent updates including out of band when needed. The 2nd most secure browser included with the OS. Basic MAC in place, as well as DEP and ASLR. The introduction of UAC which means far far less people simply running as administrator. Sorry, Windows blows OS X out of the water as far as security is concerned.
Sorry.
P.S. does anyone know why /. never honours the first paragraph tag in posts?
The zealotry was on show yesterday in the OS X article where it was stated that OS X is more insecure than windows. This has been known for a long time...due to the lack of marketshare distributed attacks are not prevalent, but due to Apple's shitty security practices it was trivial to take over OS X at any given time with a targeted attack. Have they even gotten around to having full ASLR and DEP yet? No.
People persecuting MS for poor security are living in the past. Windows is now a fine secure OS, while OS X doesn't even have basic protections in place and claims to be secure, simply taking advantage of the fact that they are not targeted as much.
Hopefully as marketshare increases they will take responsibility and secure their OS, if for no other reason than to maintain their image.
Now I'm just waiting to be modded troll....
Given that IE is the most secure browser after Chrome, your point misses the mark by a large margin.
My point was that you gave an opinion on build quality, but you are not backing that up with anything except your anecdotal opinion. If the MBP WAS universally regarded as having an above average build quality than you might have a point. As it is their is a great divide on the subject so you don't.
I guess it's the most graphics intensive games after any of those bubble popping games or solitaire.
Yes, we can determine build quality objectively be defining metrics and doing comparisons. You did not indicate that you did that, and simply said it was better in the sense that you liked it better. Many people consider Apple to sometimes be of much lower build quality, so until an actual comparison has been done your anecdotes are only a subjective preference.
Comparing specifications is the only objective measure we have. Things like build quality and design are subjective, and while you may think they are objectively better that may be far from the truth, and is quite hard to prove.
By people interested in the advances going on in computers. It's understandable that linux zealots would dismiss interesting research simply because of the company doing said research. Understandable, and sad.
The problem with saying science has reached a conclusion, is that when I have tried to investigate it it seems there is indeed a scientific consensus, but rather politically motivated. Nowhere is there hard data to support such a consensus nor can the results be reproduced or independently verified.
So, what gives?
So, where is the evidence for the well established man-made part, along with the data so it can be reproduced and verified?