Who (beyond the people making money off of HDMI licensing) says that we _HAVE_ to upgrade HDMI _NOW_, long, long before content providers are ready to distribute any content that will need it? If you need 10K screens & it _isn't_ for video, why aren't you using DisplayPort which is cheaper?
DisplayPort is a cheaper and generally technically superior solution for those who aren't "viewing content provided by [X] over their TV feeds". Thus HDMI is for everyone else.
In that context, one should have a clear preference for DisplayPort which generally supports higher display rates than HDMI and doesn't artificially make the screens & graphics cards more expensive by forcing everyone to pay licensing like HDMI does.
Only an idiot claims that an upgrade is needed when it will not be needed for the foreseeable future. Also note that there is no clear planned upgrade path comforts _my_ position, not yours.
I think that _you_ missed the point. When the existing standards have bandwidth requirements that are beyond the ability of content providers to distribute and there is virtually no planned upgrade path, further upgrades to that standard are of little/no use.
Because everything _must_ be seen from your point of view?!? We are _all_ software developers?!? We _cannot_ be using our computers differently than you do?!?
I often need to model network security configurations, not just workstations. At present, a 2 layer firewall setup with management and a load balancer so I need: 1 FortiGate VM + 1 FortiAnalyzer VM + 1 Checkpoint VM + 1 Windows VM (Smart*) + 1 F5 VM + 3 Linux VMs.
For my job I currently need: A FortiGate VM, A FortiAnalyzer VM. A Checkpoint VM. A windows VM for the Smart* tools. An F5 VM. A Windows AD to authenticate everything to and a couple client Linux VMs.
It'd be great be able to run them all on my laptop. I have the room and the CPU, it's the RAM that limits me but I don't want to sacrifice battery lifetime when my needs aren't so extravagant nor move back to boat anchors.
I've been waiting to replace my laptop for years but given that Intel hasn't released a PC with more than 16 Gb of Low Power RAM one has up to now had the choice of normal RAM or being limited to 16 Gb. Has the rare beast been announced at last?
Whatever junior, when you lie to yourself and others the way you have demonstrated here, nothing you say can be trusted. And that includes your claims that spotlight has a problem on your old Mac. Your avoidance of saying what dtrace said about the fake spotlight issue can now be laid to rest as well.
Just what product lines has Tim Cook been destroying month after month after month, hmmm?
Hmm, well, you go on to talk about their growing sales... did you stop to look at whether that growth was in dollars or units sold? Fewer units sold might imply people are less satisfied, overall.
Apple's Mac sales have been growing almost without interruption over the past 5 years in both units sold _and_ in value. Find another argument, oh ignorant one, this is yet another one where you're wrong.
Killing off the MBP 17"? Replaced by the rMBP in a lighter smaller format.
Right, more pixels in less space. Technically, yes, I can fit the more data on that smaller screen; assuming my eyes can resolve the smaller details. There's a reason some of us like 17" laptops; it's the same reason some of us like 32" monitors. There is no replacement for a larger screen if you fit in the demographic that needs a larger screen. Period.
More like the _same_ amount of visible pixels in less space as everyone who needed the WUXGA 1920x1200 resolution that the 17" had on the rMBP set the resolution to that. The quality of the Retina display meant that it was more than acceptably clear. I accepted that my eyesight was no longer up to the task and got eye glasses. You, quite visibly turned to brooding over sour grapes.
Releasing a rMBP with half the battery or twice the weight _would_ be a mistake.
Who ever did, or implied, either of those actions?
You did, every time you whined about your old 17" MBP and how it was the perfect form factor and hor "a month under Cook does make Jobs appear to have been perfect". You also avoided detailing all the "missteps" you think that Cook has been making. Come now junior, don't be shy.
It doesn't surprise me that someone who chose to buy a transportable that never actually sold that well (the 17"MBP) thinks that bigger, heavier rMBP's would be better. It doesn't make it right, especially when you see how well the most recent rMBP is selling.
Why would a Ryzen MBP be bigger and heavier? Careful with that flame, there's lots of straw around.
You're confused (no surprise there anymore). Doubling the size & weight of the battery is so that non-LP RAM >16Gb could be used, not for Ryzen (against which I had other arguments). Read it again, this time slower...
As most modern malware uses the Internet, supervision of what exactly is being accessed is a useful proxy. Backtracking to the malware agent once the traffic has been identified again shows that the vast majority is Windows based (exceptions made for the IP Camera & Firewall botnets that aren't Macs or Windows anyway).
For someone who supposedly works in security, you sure are and ignorant shit. And I mean that as a statement of fact based on my own observations, not as an insult.
Aww gee snookers has run plain out of coherent arguments & is now resorting to ad homonyms. Grow up junior.
When you say "supervision of what exactly is being accessed is a useful proxy", you clearly imply that you are monitoring for known threats. Since most known threats affect Windows (and for the good reasons on which we both agree), surely you see how confirmation bias might play a role in your perception, no? Just in case, I'll explain: if you're monitoring an IP address belonging to a C&C server for Windows malware, you probably wouldn't expect to see non-Windows machines connecting back to it. You're stating the obvious as an attempt to show that you're right, while hoping that nobody will point out that what you've just said is not relevant.
Your malware knowledge is just as dated as your Mac AV info. Talos, Checkpoint etc are not just looking for known threats. They keep track of signatures of infectable elements and regularly re-examine what has been transmitted/received and to/from whom. Thus when a 0day is used it'll pass through. However when someone analyses the malware (AV vendor, side effects of it activating anywhere that gets it noticed at any of their client's sites, etc), they can then notify every one of their other clients that saw the signature.
How much malware is found and analyzed only because it was identified by heuristic detection routines in antimalware software? You work in security, you should know this. Here's a hint: the vast majority. We'll circle back around to that, though, because it rolls right from what you said above to what I'm about to quote.
Go try and teach your grandmother how to suck an egg junior. You're clearly in no position to believe you have any hints to give.
Presence/absence of AV software is NOT a useful data point for Malware infection rates.
Bingo. That was my point. Thanks for letting me know you got it! I'm so proud of you!
Err, _you_ argued that "most people do not run any sort of security software on their Macs" as is it made a difference, not me. You're incoherent.
The truth is that you have infection rate numbers for Windows because the means to detect those infections is widely deployed; you don't have those numbers for Mac because the means to detect those infections is not widely deployed.
Accesses to known & discovered botnet adresses, modification of files on servers, analysis of baselined network traffic Data loss prevention monitors that trigger on the discovery of critical data are all discovery techniques that you didn't know of because they didn't exist 20 years ago. None of these are Mac specific oh ignorant one.
I think you overestimate your influence if you think that Apple is "taking it on the chin"
I think we simply define "taking it on the chin" differently.
I think that you (re)define it as it suits your ego, moving the goalposts as needed.
That most malware has been developed to target Windows is a fact, not an opinion.
It's also one I've not argued against. What's your point?
You've been repeatedly arguing "that Macs users think that they are invulnerable" and that that's false, then pooh-poohing the fact that Macs are less vulnerable than Windows. The minor GUI inconsistencies the TFA whines about are not as nearly as important to Mac users as this much lower susceptibility to malware. That's been the point you've repeatedly avoided recognising over the last dozen exchanges.
You're conflating personal experience and sample size. I work in the domain of IT security and thus have a larger sample size than just family. Slashdot is irrelevant in any case.
You've asked all of those people if they believe Macs are invulnerable? You see, I encounter Mac users who mistakenly believe that all the time, so I know they're out there. How many people you've personally interviewed about this is your sample size, that might be why I'm conflating the two.
Oh please... Like the people at Talos, Checkpoint, etc performing de-assembly of malware whose reports I read regularly need to be told that Macs have malware? This argument is embarrassingly puerile.
To keep this post short... well... less long... I'll just touch on what you got wrong in your reply.
s/what/IMO what/ which is only as strong as your arguments which have been shown to be weaker than you think.
Doesn't change that it's a strawman. Apple doesn't claim that Macs are invulnerable, I don't claim that they are.
I never claimed that you or Apple made that claim; I pointed out that many Mac users believe their Mac to be invulnerable.
You are the only one making that argument because every one else recognises that it is overstated to the point of being a strawman. Just give it up. Nobody but you believes it or that demonstrating it is false means anything.
I didn't want to quote too much from the Ars article (which along with the comments is as usual more insightful that comments here on/.) but:
But even the authors admit there are some problems with this idea [of solid sandy traces & not water]. To begin with, when a slope destabilizes and some of the material flows downhill, the largest particles should flow the farthest. This should leave the slope in a more stable state and less likely to have RSL appear the Martian year following; instead, they seem to reappear in the same places.
Then there are color issues. Darkening could be ascribed to the uncovering of material that hasn't been lightened by its exposure to harsh Martian conditions. But many of the RSL show a complicated pattern of darker and lighter features. In addition, there's no obvious mechanism to lighten the RSL back up again in less than a single Martian year. The review suggests a coating of dust might help, but there would have to be additional factors involved.
Finally, like the salt left behind by evaporated brines, the downward flow should leave piles of material at the base of the slope and near any features like boulders that protrude from it. But there's no sign of that in most of the images. So, based on these issues, the idea that these are granular flows has nearly as many problems as the watery explanation.
So where does that leave us? The paper argues that we're right back where we started: we don't expect liquid water on the surface of Mars, and the RSL simply aren't conclusive evidence of it. "Flowing liquid water in the current Martian climate has always been an extraordinary claim," the authors write. "The observations and interpretations presented here suggest that RSL are no longer extraordinary evidence." As long as we're not sure what they are, they can't be used as evidence of anything else.
My advice for the Windows malware refugees (like most of my family) is to practice some common sense.
That would have been good advice for them when they were on Windows, as well.
My advice is generally platform agnostic so yeah, Windows/Linux/Mac, all need some some common sense. The difficulty being what qualifies as common sense of course.
Do Mac owners believe in general that they are invulnerable? No, that's just another straw man you're setting up to knock down.
Of course, after meeting me, most Mac users no longer believe that; and those who still do deserve whatever they get. But I do get in arguments over whether Macs have malware issues at least half the time someone tries to tell me how much more safe and secure macOS is than Windows.
Doesn't change that it's a strawman. Apple doesn't claim that Macs are invulnerable, I don't claim that they are. _You_ are and then saying subsequently that they aren't. Strawman arguments prove nothing. That most malware has been developed to target Windows is a fact, not an opinion.
Your sample size appears to be your family and Slashdot. My sampling of Mac users is different, so we 're going to have to agree to disagree on this point.
You're conflating personal experience and sample size. I work in the domain of IT security and thus have a larger sample size than just family. Slashdot is irrelevant in any case.
Using a mac an iron clad gives no guarantee of malware invulnerability but renders much _fewer_ problems. I haven't been called to reinstall my relative's Macs every 2-3 months the way I was with windows, so there's that.
My experience shows that, had you instilled that computing common sense into them while they were still on Windows, you wouldn't have been reinstalling their Windows machines every 2-3 months, either. As someone who uses both platforms daily (I'm typing this on the aforementioned MacBook, which I use when I'm not at my desk -- and later, after a massive plate of turkey, I'll probably sit at the powerful Windows workstation in my office and work for an hour or two), I can tell you that the same common sense keeps both of them safe.
Well then I question your experience as most of the malware risks are clearly Windows targeted and thus Macs will generally pass through unscathed. Different OS, no Flash installed, No Java installed & use of non-MS application suites all help to make the Macs less vulnerable even when one of them ignores my advice & clicks on a "invoice.docx" sent by an unverified source. The same mistake on a windows machine will not be so benign.
That might not have been the case in the first year after XP came out (longer, if you insisted on doing fresh installs from a pre-SP1 CD) and I seem to recall somewhat severe issues if you used IE or went online without at least closed NAT between you and the internet before that, but Windows hasn't been the swiss cheese you imply since the end of 2002. Of course, it's not like MacOS was so clean in 2002, either.
Again, I'm not claiming that Macs are invulnerable, just less targeted, so less exploited. Any streaming site that bothers can find exploits for old versions on MacOS browsers. That _the_streaming_sites_ & other malware generally don't is because almost all of them just don't bother.
Using 15 year old data doesn't help your case as it is hopelessly out of date and immaterial to almost everyone anyway.
If you only consider the types of malware listed in that list, there aren't alarmingly more for Windows than there are for macOS (pre-OSX). When you adjust for target size, the Mac took a disproportionate number of hits; I mean, Apple only held 5.8% of the market in 2006, and that was
What cleaner install than a new machine: My impression was that you didn't test it clean without installing any of your files/tools. Apologies if I misinterpreted. Also, without a Dtrace of the spotlight process you say is taking up so much CPU you cannot say that the problem has really been looked at.
Malware: My advice for the Windows malware refugees (like most of my family) is to practice some common sense. Streaming sites and cracked software are no-no's and for those that insist, the use of a free forticlient client allows one to avoid many risks by performing web filtering by categories (malware & new domains blocked => no obvious malware over the last 5 years). Do Mac owners believe in general that they are invulnerable? No, that's just another straw man you're setting up to knock down.
Using a mac an iron clad gives no guarantee of malware invulnerability but renders much _fewer_ problems. I haven't been called to reinstall my relative's Macs every 2-3 months the way I was with windows, so there's that.
Are there people looking for Mac Malware? Yes there are: Talos, Checkpoint, Fortinet, Stormshield, etc are actively looking for malware and don't limit their research to Windows Some also regularly re-evaluate previously submitted files/domains to see if they were date activated & will then notify everyone among their subscribers that received the files/consulted the sites to start containment/disinfection.
Re taking it on the chin: You used the expression in referring to Apple. That kind of makes people thing that you thought that when writing it.
Re Jobs the Angel/Cook the Devil: You do remember the Lisa, the Newton & the Mac Cube right? Jobs had his share of missteps.
Perhaps I came back into the Mac world at the right time as both my rMBP & my Quad-core MacMini are still sufficient to my needs (though I await a 32Gb rMBP). Cook, even with his missteps hasn't brought doom upon Apple (Mac sales have been almost monotonously up by 10% year after year under Cook) and I hope to see octa-core rMBPs + minis with more RAM before I need to update. With the Mac Pro failing to impress & the neutering of the MacMini since 2012 one hopes that Cook can learn from his mistakes. The problem with the rMBP is _Intel_, not Apple. When Intel finally releases >16Gb LPDDR4 in their chipsets I'm confident that a rMBP that fits my needs will be available.
Snort, what you don't have any stories on how difficult it was supporting the Lisa? No apple II stories?
You don't see _any_ problems invoking 20+ year old problems that in large part predated Steve Jobs' return to Apple in claiming that Apple has _always_ sucked? Naaaahh, why bother trying to understand what brought Apple from those dark days to the company it has become when you can piss and moan like you were already 90 years old complaining how the world is not as good as it used to be.
Re: Spotlight issues. Weird but your sample set is too small to draw conclusions. You also don't appear to have done any testing on a clean OS install without installing anything else. No Dtrace logs showing what Spotlight is indexing? SSD or HD?
Re: Malware. My experience & that of the vast majority of former Windows & now Mac users is that while the threat of malware isn't zero it's sufficiently small that Apple's marketing is justifiable. That won't stop nitpickers from pointing out that there are a few example of infected macs, but the difference between reinstalling relatives PCs every three months and them being trouble free since moving to Macs is flagrant.
I think you overestimate your influence if you think that Apple is "taking it on the chin" from people trying to make mountains out of minor bug mole-hills. Apple's fortunes have indeed flagged somewhat in the Mac space but I think that's because they're not proposing what many people want. The absence of support for >16Gb LPDDR4 in Intel chipsets has meant that many people have been keeping their rMBPs (me included). No significant upgrades in the MacMini since 2012 so no upgrading it (again me included). A powerful and _modular_ Mac Pro. Hopefully 2018 will bring changes.
Do you see the issue on all of your macs or just the one?
If just the one, Ever tested to see if you have the issues without your IDE/git implementation? Ever added the IDE/Git to the others? Yeah, for you, where you _need_ them it'd suck if either one was to blame but it'd also mean that you've been looking in the wrong direction (& blaming the wrong people).
I don't use an IDE nor GIT so I'm of no use in comparing.
Yeah malware. Intelligent people know that there are much _fewer_ virii/worms/trojans on MacOS, and don't fall into the trap of believing that there aren't _any_. Not even Apple marketing has ever made the claim that _no_ Mac malware exists.
Slashdot Mirror
Who (beyond the people making money off of HDMI licensing) says that we _HAVE_ to upgrade HDMI _NOW_, long, long before content providers are ready to distribute any content that will need it? If you need 10K screens & it _isn't_ for video, why aren't you using DisplayPort which is cheaper?
DisplayPort is a cheaper and generally technically superior solution for those who aren't "viewing content provided by [X] over their TV feeds". Thus HDMI is for everyone else.
In that context, one should have a clear preference for DisplayPort which generally supports higher display rates than HDMI and doesn't artificially make the screens & graphics cards more expensive by forcing everyone to pay licensing like HDMI does.
Only an idiot claims that an upgrade is needed when it will not be needed for the foreseeable future. Also note that there is no clear planned upgrade path comforts _my_ position, not yours.
I think that _you_ missed the point. When the existing standards have bandwidth requirements that are beyond the ability of content providers to distribute and there is virtually no planned upgrade path, further upgrades to that standard are of little/no use.
Because everything _must_ be seen from your point of view?!? We are _all_ software developers?!? We _cannot_ be using our computers differently than you do?!?
Were you an only child perchance?
You’re reading your own environmental bias in attempting to see implications where there are none.
Please point out where I made any claim that my needs are congruent with that "99% of developers"?
Are my needs more demanding than most developers need? Yes.
Can I perform them on a single multi-CPU platform? Most certainly as at present it all runs fine on a NUC accessed from my laptop..
Is that a reason for implying that I should not aspire to doing it all on my laptop as I do when my needs are not quite so demanding? No.
I often need to model network security configurations, not just workstations. At present, a 2 layer firewall setup with management and a load balancer so I need: 1 FortiGate VM + 1 FortiAnalyzer VM + 1 Checkpoint VM + 1 Windows VM (Smart*) + 1 F5 VM + 3 Linux VMs.
16Gb ain't enough. 32 is, barely.
For my job I currently need: A FortiGate VM, A FortiAnalyzer VM. A Checkpoint VM. A windows VM for the Smart* tools. An F5 VM. A Windows AD to authenticate everything to and a couple client Linux VMs.
It'd be great be able to run them all on my laptop. I have the room and the CPU, it's the RAM that limits me but I don't want to sacrifice battery lifetime when my needs aren't so extravagant nor move back to boat anchors.
I've been waiting to replace my laptop for years but given that Intel hasn't released a PC with more than 16 Gb of Low Power RAM one has up to now had the choice of normal RAM or being limited to 16 Gb. Has the rare beast been announced at last?
Whatever junior, when you lie to yourself and others the way you have demonstrated here, nothing you say can be trusted. And that includes your claims that spotlight has a problem on your old Mac. Your avoidance of saying what dtrace said about the fake spotlight issue can now be laid to rest as well.
Because, for you it suffises to repeat something long enough for it to become "the truth"? Objective facts don't matter?
I assume you voted Trump.
Just what product lines has Tim Cook been destroying month after month after month, hmmm?
Hmm, well, you go on to talk about their growing sales... did you stop to look at whether that growth was in dollars or units sold? Fewer units sold might imply people are less satisfied, overall.
Apple's Mac sales have been growing almost without interruption over the past 5 years in both units sold _and_ in value. Find another argument, oh ignorant one, this is yet another one where you're wrong.
Killing off the MBP 17"? Replaced by the rMBP in a lighter smaller format.
Right, more pixels in less space. Technically, yes, I can fit the more data on that smaller screen; assuming my eyes can resolve the smaller details. There's a reason some of us like 17" laptops; it's the same reason some of us like 32" monitors. There is no replacement for a larger screen if you fit in the demographic that needs a larger screen. Period.
More like the _same_ amount of visible pixels in less space as everyone who needed the WUXGA 1920x1200 resolution that the 17" had on the rMBP set the resolution to that. The quality of the Retina display meant that it was more than acceptably clear. I accepted that my eyesight was no longer up to the task and got eye glasses. You, quite visibly turned to brooding over sour grapes.
Releasing a rMBP with half the battery or twice the weight _would_ be a mistake.
Who ever did, or implied, either of those actions?
You did, every time you whined about your old 17" MBP and how it was the perfect form factor and hor "a month under Cook does make Jobs appear to have been perfect". You also avoided detailing all the "missteps" you think that Cook has been making. Come now junior, don't be shy.
It doesn't surprise me that someone who chose to buy a transportable that never actually sold that well (the 17"MBP) thinks that bigger, heavier rMBP's would be better. It doesn't make it right, especially when you see how well the most recent rMBP is selling.
Why would a Ryzen MBP be bigger and heavier? Careful with that flame, there's lots of straw around.
You're confused (no surprise there anymore). Doubling the size & weight of the battery is so that non-LP RAM >16Gb could be used, not for Ryzen (against which I had other arguments). Read it again, this time slower...
What 15 year old data did I use?
http://lowendmac.com/2015/clas... details Mac virii dating from 1997-1998. It's not 15 years old it's _19_ year old data.
As most modern malware uses the Internet, supervision of what exactly is being accessed is a useful proxy. Backtracking to the malware agent once the traffic has been identified again shows that the vast majority is Windows based (exceptions made for the IP Camera & Firewall botnets that aren't Macs or Windows anyway).
For someone who supposedly works in security, you sure are and ignorant shit. And I mean that as a statement of fact based on my own observations, not as an insult.
Aww gee snookers has run plain out of coherent arguments & is now resorting to ad homonyms. Grow up junior.
When you say "supervision of what exactly is being accessed is a useful proxy", you clearly imply that you are monitoring for known threats. Since most known threats affect Windows (and for the good reasons on which we both agree), surely you see how confirmation bias might play a role in your perception, no? Just in case, I'll explain: if you're monitoring an IP address belonging to a C&C server for Windows malware, you probably wouldn't expect to see non-Windows machines connecting back to it. You're stating the obvious as an attempt to show that you're right, while hoping that nobody will point out that what you've just said is not relevant.
Your malware knowledge is just as dated as your Mac AV info. Talos, Checkpoint etc are not just looking for known threats. They keep track of signatures of infectable elements and regularly re-examine what has been transmitted/received and to/from whom. Thus when a 0day is used it'll pass through. However when someone analyses the malware (AV vendor, side effects of it activating anywhere that gets it noticed at any of their client's sites, etc), they can then notify every one of their other clients that saw the signature.
How much malware is found and analyzed only because it was identified by heuristic detection routines in antimalware software? You work in security, you should know this. Here's a hint: the vast majority. We'll circle back around to that, though, because it rolls right from what you said above to what I'm about to quote.
Go try and teach your grandmother how to suck an egg junior. You're clearly in no position to believe you have any hints to give.
Presence/absence of AV software is NOT a useful data point for Malware infection rates.
Bingo. That was my point. Thanks for letting me know you got it! I'm so proud of you!
Err, _you_ argued that "most people do not run any sort of security software on their Macs" as is it made a difference, not me. You're incoherent.
The truth is that you have infection rate numbers for Windows because the means to detect those infections is widely deployed; you don't have those numbers for Mac because the means to detect those infections is not widely deployed.
Accesses to known & discovered botnet adresses, modification of files on servers, analysis of baselined network traffic Data loss prevention monitors that trigger on the discovery of critical data are all discovery techniques that you didn't know of because they didn't exist 20 years ago. None of these are Mac specific oh ignorant one.
I think you overestimate your influence if you think that Apple is "taking it on the chin"
I think we simply define "taking it on the chin" differently.
I think that you (re)define it as it suits your ego, moving the goalposts as needed.
That most malware has been developed to target Windows is a fact, not an opinion.
It's also one I've not argued against. What's your point?
You've been repeatedly arguing "that Macs users think that they are invulnerable" and that that's false, then pooh-poohing the fact that Macs are less vulnerable than Windows. The minor GUI inconsistencies the TFA whines about are not as nearly as important to Mac users as this much lower susceptibility to malware. That's been the point you've repeatedly avoided recognising over the last dozen exchanges.
You're conflating personal experience and sample size. I work in the domain of IT security and thus have a larger sample size than just family. Slashdot is irrelevant in any case.
You've asked all of those people if they believe Macs are invulnerable? You see, I encounter Mac users who mistakenly believe that all the time, so I know they're out there. How many people you've personally interviewed about this is your sample size, that might be why I'm conflating the two.
Oh please... Like the people at Talos, Checkpoint, etc performing de-assembly of malware whose reports I read regularly need to be told that Macs have malware? This argument is embarrassingly puerile.
To keep this post short... well... less long... I'll just touch on what you got wrong in your reply.
s/what/IMO what/ which is only as strong as your arguments which have been shown to be weaker than you think.
Doesn't change that it's a strawman. Apple doesn't claim that Macs are invulnerable, I don't claim that they are.
I never claimed that you or Apple made that claim; I pointed out that many Mac users believe their Mac to be invulnerable.
You are the only one making that argument because every one else recognises that it is overstated to the point of being a strawman. Just give it up. Nobody but you believes it or that demonstrating it is false means anything.
Splitting will be more manageable.
I didn't want to quote too much from the Ars article (which along with the comments is as usual more insightful that comments here on /.) but:
But even the authors admit there are some problems with this idea [of solid sandy traces & not water]. To begin with, when a slope destabilizes and some of the material flows downhill, the largest particles should flow the farthest. This should leave the slope in a more stable state and less likely to have RSL appear the Martian year following; instead, they seem to reappear in the same places.
Then there are color issues. Darkening could be ascribed to the uncovering of material that hasn't been lightened by its exposure to harsh Martian conditions. But many of the RSL show a complicated pattern of darker and lighter features. In addition, there's no obvious mechanism to lighten the RSL back up again in less than a single Martian year. The review suggests a coating of dust might help, but there would have to be additional factors involved.
Finally, like the salt left behind by evaporated brines, the downward flow should leave piles of material at the base of the slope and near any features like boulders that protrude from it. But there's no sign of that in most of the images. So, based on these issues, the idea that these are granular flows has nearly as many problems as the watery explanation.
So where does that leave us? The paper argues that we're right back where we started: we don't expect liquid water on the surface of Mars, and the RSL simply aren't conclusive evidence of it. "Flowing liquid water in the current Martian climate has always been an extraordinary claim," the authors write. "The observations and interpretations presented here suggest that RSL are no longer extraordinary evidence." As long as we're not sure what they are, they can't be used as evidence of anything else.
My advice for the Windows malware refugees (like most of my family) is to practice some common sense.
That would have been good advice for them when they were on Windows, as well.
My advice is generally platform agnostic so yeah, Windows/Linux/Mac, all need some some common sense. The difficulty being what qualifies as common sense of course.
Do Mac owners believe in general that they are invulnerable? No, that's just another straw man you're setting up to knock down.
Of course, after meeting me, most Mac users no longer believe that; and those who still do deserve whatever they get. But I do get in arguments over whether Macs have malware issues at least half the time someone tries to tell me how much more safe and secure macOS is than Windows.
Doesn't change that it's a strawman. Apple doesn't claim that Macs are invulnerable, I don't claim that they are. _You_ are and then saying subsequently that they aren't. Strawman arguments prove nothing. That most malware has been developed to target Windows is a fact, not an opinion.
Your sample size appears to be your family and Slashdot. My sampling of Mac users is different, so we 're going to have to agree to disagree on this point.
You're conflating personal experience and sample size. I work in the domain of IT security and thus have a larger sample size than just family. Slashdot is irrelevant in any case.
Using a mac an iron clad gives no guarantee of malware invulnerability but renders much _fewer_ problems. I haven't been called to reinstall my relative's Macs every 2-3 months the way I was with windows, so there's that.
My experience shows that, had you instilled that computing common sense into them while they were still on Windows, you wouldn't have been reinstalling their Windows machines every 2-3 months, either. As someone who uses both platforms daily (I'm typing this on the aforementioned MacBook, which I use when I'm not at my desk -- and later, after a massive plate of turkey, I'll probably sit at the powerful Windows workstation in my office and work for an hour or two), I can tell you that the same common sense keeps both of them safe.
Well then I question your experience as most of the malware risks are clearly Windows targeted and thus Macs will generally pass through unscathed. Different OS, no Flash installed, No Java installed & use of non-MS application suites all help to make the Macs less vulnerable even when one of them ignores my advice & clicks on a "invoice.docx" sent by an unverified source. The same mistake on a windows machine will not be so benign.
That might not have been the case in the first year after XP came out (longer, if you insisted on doing fresh installs from a pre-SP1 CD) and I seem to recall somewhat severe issues if you used IE or went online without at least closed NAT between you and the internet before that, but Windows hasn't been the swiss cheese you imply since the end of 2002. Of course, it's not like MacOS was so clean in 2002, either.
Again, I'm not claiming that Macs are invulnerable, just less targeted, so less exploited. Any streaming site that bothers can find exploits for old versions on MacOS browsers. That _the_streaming_sites_ & other malware generally don't is because almost all of them just don't bother.
Using 15 year old data doesn't help your case as it is hopelessly out of date and immaterial to almost everyone anyway.
If you only consider the types of malware listed in that list, there aren't alarmingly more for Windows than there are for macOS (pre-OSX). When you adjust for target size, the Mac took a disproportionate number of hits; I mean, Apple only held 5.8% of the market in 2006, and that was
This Ars Technica article was much more informative than the cited sources.
Brines evaporating should have left detectable level of salt deposits which we are not seeing.
That said, if it is sand, we should also be seeing a build-up of these darker sands at the bottom of the slopes which we are not seeing either.
Clearly we are missing something that a visit would resolve.
What cleaner install than a new machine: My impression was that you didn't test it clean without installing any of your files/tools. Apologies if I misinterpreted. Also, without a Dtrace of the spotlight process you say is taking up so much CPU you cannot say that the problem has really been looked at.
Malware: My advice for the Windows malware refugees (like most of my family) is to practice some common sense. Streaming sites and cracked software are no-no's and for those that insist, the use of a free forticlient client allows one to avoid many risks by performing web filtering by categories (malware & new domains blocked => no obvious malware over the last 5 years). Do Mac owners believe in general that they are invulnerable? No, that's just another straw man you're setting up to knock down.
Using a mac an iron clad gives no guarantee of malware invulnerability but renders much _fewer_ problems. I haven't been called to reinstall my relative's Macs every 2-3 months the way I was with windows, so there's that.
Are there people looking for Mac Malware? Yes there are: Talos, Checkpoint, Fortinet, Stormshield, etc are actively looking for malware and don't limit their research to Windows Some also regularly re-evaluate previously submitted files/domains to see if they were date activated & will then notify everyone among their subscribers that received the files/consulted the sites to start containment/disinfection.
Re taking it on the chin: You used the expression in referring to Apple. That kind of makes people thing that you thought that when writing it.
Re Jobs the Angel/Cook the Devil: You do remember the Lisa, the Newton & the Mac Cube right? Jobs had his share of missteps.
Perhaps I came back into the Mac world at the right time as both my rMBP & my Quad-core MacMini are still sufficient to my needs (though I await a 32Gb rMBP). Cook, even with his missteps hasn't brought doom upon Apple (Mac sales have been almost monotonously up by 10% year after year under Cook) and I hope to see octa-core rMBPs + minis with more RAM before I need to update. With the Mac Pro failing to impress & the neutering of the MacMini since 2012 one hopes that Cook can learn from his mistakes. The problem with the rMBP is _Intel_, not Apple. When Intel finally releases >16Gb LPDDR4 in their chipsets I'm confident that a rMBP that fits my needs will be available.
WTF Slashdot?!? Even Timmay on a sloooowwww sunday would never have posted this race baiting subject.
If _this_ is the new slashdot that I'm going to be a ex-slashdotter.
Snort, what you don't have any stories on how difficult it was supporting the Lisa? No apple II stories?
You don't see _any_ problems invoking 20+ year old problems that in large part predated Steve Jobs' return to Apple in claiming that Apple has _always_ sucked? Naaaahh, why bother trying to understand what brought Apple from those dark days to the company it has become when you can piss and moan like you were already 90 years old complaining how the world is not as good as it used to be.
Re: Spotlight issues. Weird but your sample set is too small to draw conclusions. You also don't appear to have done any testing on a clean OS install without installing anything else. No Dtrace logs showing what Spotlight is indexing? SSD or HD?
Re: Malware.
My experience & that of the vast majority of former Windows & now Mac users is that while the threat of malware isn't zero it's sufficiently small that Apple's marketing is justifiable. That won't stop nitpickers from pointing out that there are a few example of infected macs, but the difference between reinstalling relatives PCs every three months and them being trouble free since moving to Macs is flagrant.
I think you overestimate your influence if you think that Apple is "taking it on the chin" from people trying to make mountains out of minor bug mole-hills. Apple's fortunes have indeed flagged somewhat in the Mac space but I think that's because they're not proposing what many people want. The absence of support for >16Gb LPDDR4 in Intel chipsets has meant that many people have been keeping their rMBPs (me included). No significant upgrades in the MacMini since 2012 so no upgrading it (again me included). A powerful and _modular_ Mac Pro. Hopefully 2018 will bring changes.
Do you see the issue on all of your macs or just the one?
If just the one, Ever tested to see if you have the issues without your IDE/git implementation? Ever added the IDE/Git to the others? Yeah, for you, where you _need_ them it'd suck if either one was to blame but it'd also mean that you've been looking in the wrong direction (& blaming the wrong people).
I don't use an IDE nor GIT so I'm of no use in comparing.
Yeah malware. Intelligent people know that there are much _fewer_ virii/worms/trojans on MacOS, and don't fall into the trap of believing that there aren't _any_. Not even Apple marketing has ever made the claim that _no_ Mac malware exists.