You only need such cruft for those unreliable pinko-commie backed *nix type sytsems. I mean, when is the last time you heard of a Windows server going down??
FreeBSD certainly doesn't have the cutting/bleeding edge hardware support that linux enjoys, but I think the whole "18 months till FreeBSD supports it" is a little off. I have a new A64 dual core machine with the absolute latest and greatest MB from ASUS, a GeForce 7800GT, and a Areca 1210 PCIE SATAII Raid controller and FreeBSD 6 supports everything.
You mentioned "audio, movies, and 3D graphics". Well....
Sound:Yeah, sounds come out of my speakers - check Video: I have AMarok/mplayer/noatun/Realplayer installed here, and they work fine. - check 3D Graphics: 80FPS at 1280x1024 in the linux version of America's Army 2.5 - check
The one thing I don't have is support for my TV Tuner card. There is a driver for it that uses a wrapper around the binary Windows driver, but it's broken in FreeBSD 6.x (works in 5.x).:(
"Word 2003 on windows XP will still kill your word document, though it may not BSOD or scramble floppy disks."
Floppy disks are unreliable by themselves. They need no help from the OS, and should NOT be used to store documents.
But I do remember something like this happening that WAS the fault of Windows. The probloem was limited to win2k and happened in word (Office XP version) saved to a floppy disk. We had two reports of it on some old machines that still ran Win2k, but we assumed the bluescreens or freezes were hardware related since the particular model they were using had notoriously bad motherboards. We reminded the users that they had a network drive avaiable to them and that they should not use floppy disks for any reason.
We later saw a hotfix released by MS that described the issue.
This isn't a reply directly to the parent AC, but to this thread in general. Everyone here has been bickering on about how one might or might not be able to get root access on a Mac machine, but to me that's silly becuase it's an argument that is largely irrelevant.
Brining the topic of root access up is a giant red herring in this security argument because not having root access doesn't keep one from using a computer. If I'm a malware writer who is looking to bring Macs into my botnet, as long I can get my code executed on the target machine, I can turn that computer into a drone that does my bidding. Certainly, root access is preferred, as there are certain things I can't do without root, but I still do plenty without it.
M$ and Firefox manage to release security patches that install themselves. Why can't/won't Oracle do the same?
Interestingly enough, jsut a few years ago, MS SQL Server patches were shipped as archives with updates binaries and you had to replace each file by hand and I think in some cases, run scripts. When slammer came out and borked 80% of the worlds SQL servers, Microsoft realized that the monkeys running their products were probably too stupid to manually apply the patches, and changed their patches so they were automated.
"The main area to focus on is new development. This is an area where PostgreSQL, for instance, is really shining. It offers many of the features needed by large, corporate data infrastructures, while offering almost none of the problems associated with Oracle's offerings. In the near future, we likely won't be hearing anywhere near as much about Oracle as we do today, since it just won't be a component of most of the information systems of tomorrow."
After spending a little bit of time with MS SQL Server 2005, and seeing the massive improvement over MS SQL 2000, I have to think that some of Oracle's marketshare might just slip into MSFT's hands too. Besides clustering support being improved drastically over 2000, alot of the changes in SQL 2005 revolve around development support.
Your points about Windows are well taken. When looking at them all, I see that just about all of your gripes (many of them are my gripes too) are the result of Microsoft worshipping the God of backward compatibility, a God who's ways Apple has routinely cursed and discarded over the years...at their own peril.
In short, I agree. Cruft sucks, but it's a 'crufty world'.
Yes, security is a potential problem with Windows, but not what I would call a limitation. Hell, if you were a MS astroturfer, you could even tout is as a feature (look at all of the viruses the WIndows can run that Macs can't!*).
But seriosuly, both platforms have limitations. Windows can not run some of the neato "i____" apps that Mac comes with and Mac's can't run most games and certain other apps. To describe WIndows and the only OS with "limitations" is a bit baised IMO.
It can't because it uses the same security mechanism as "ctr+alt+delete" logon, where only a local device (keyboard/Mouse), *OR* a process that already has the administrator token (like the RDP or a VNC service) can touch it. Even if the user is an administrator, with UAC enabled, (s)he has a regular user security token by default, so spyware, if executed would start out with the regular user token and not be able to touch the UAC dialog box.
...Dear Microsoft "experts": You just permanently lost the user privilege security argument, and you probably don't even know why."
You are one to talk. Giving the "BUILTIN\users" security principal full controll is all that's neccessary. Taking ownership of the files would be at best redundant, and at worst, completely useless.
"Tell me how to get Monsters Inc. Scream Team Training to run on a non-admin account without me manually entering an admin pw into Run As... every time and I'll be unbelievably grateful."
Check out the "utility" I advertise in my sig. It's a (ugly) hack, but it works, and it's relatively secure. You would still have to enter a password, but it's your OWN password, which can afford be less complicated since it's a regular user account.
Also, if you want to actually try and fix the program, a utility not mentioned in this thread, aclview. It's freeware a program for managing ACLs for XP. It's particularly useful for XP Home users, as it allows you to modify file permissions without having to use using cacls.exe or reboot into safe mode.
And apparently fine tuning is in order. In a recent postfix update notification (4/6/2006), the author of postfix wrote this:
"Beware: Coverity's claim of "17 original defects" in Postfix includes 14 false positives; that is, 14 are bugs in Coverity, not in Postfix. Inflated claims like this may make their own product look good, but they are hamful for the reputation of open source projects."
I've read that a RHCE cert is like an MCSE - in that you can cram for it and pass it without really "getting it". But I don't think there is any hurt in getting one.
My work sent me to a bunch of Win2k/AD training classes a few years ago and I got a "Learning Tree" certificate out of it. Though I really did learn a ton of usefull stuff about Active Directory in those classes, I wouldn't be impressed if I saw a learning tree cert on someones resume. I say this because there were a *ton* of dumbasses in my learning tree classes - who passed the tests.
"So. Where are the viruses, then? It's been at least five years."
They are all targeting the platform with users.
The only medium by which market share has no effect in regards to the propagation of worms are vulnerable daemons on open ports (Google the the blackICE worm for proof of that), and MacOSX doesn't have 'em. The other two main mediums - Email and web, need a sufficient pool of potential recipients in order to be viable.
Do yourself a favor and actually think about the logistics involved with spreading an email or web virus. If you send out an email to 100,000 email addresses, how many of them will be read by Windows users, and how many will be read by Mac users? Of those, what percentage will actually fall for it? The number too quicly reaches zero on the Mac side of things.
Now think about Web Vulnerabilities. Lets say you put a spyware installer that uses a Safari vulnerability on your web site. How many Mac users will actually visit that site? Of those how many will be using the vulnerable version or Safari, or be using Safari at all?
To the issue of user awareness. Lets say, just for the sake of argument, that Mac users are more savvy than Windows users and wouldn't fall for social engineering tricks as often. If OSX took a huge chunk of Market share away from Windows, do you honestly think all of those users who made the switch would suddenly become more security savvy? It makes sense to me that they would bring their ignorance over.
1) Malware does not require root permissions to install itself and do the things it needs to do (spam, DoS, etc). 2) Apple has plenty of their own apps with vulnerabilities. They don't need Outlook or IE. 3) The privilege separation in Windows works fine. The problem lies in the fact that it's not taken advantage of by most. 4) The most common method of worm propagation is email, not open ports. Apple users use email, right?
Apple users are not inherently more savvy that users of any other OS. If 80% of desktops ran OSX, there would plenty of suckers out there that would fall for email worms, or visit a website exploiting the latest Safari (or Firefox) vulnerability.
Slashdot Mirror
You only need such cruft for those unreliable pinko-commie backed *nix type sytsems. I mean, when is the last time you heard of a Windows server going down??
FreeBSD certainly doesn't have the cutting/bleeding edge hardware support that linux enjoys, but I think the whole "18 months till FreeBSD supports it" is a little off. I have a new A64 dual core machine with the absolute latest and greatest MB from ASUS, a GeForce 7800GT, and a Areca 1210 PCIE SATAII Raid controller and FreeBSD 6 supports everything.
:(
You mentioned "audio, movies, and 3D graphics". Well....
Sound:Yeah, sounds come out of my speakers - check
Video: I have AMarok/mplayer/noatun/Realplayer installed here, and they work fine. - check
3D Graphics: 80FPS at 1280x1024 in the linux version of America's Army 2.5 - check
The one thing I don't have is support for my TV Tuner card. There is a driver for it that uses a wrapper around the binary Windows driver, but it's broken in FreeBSD 6.x (works in 5.x).
"Word 2003 on windows XP will still kill your word document, though it may not BSOD or scramble floppy disks."
Floppy disks are unreliable by themselves. They need no help from the OS, and should NOT be used to store documents.
But I do remember something like this happening that WAS the fault of Windows. The probloem was limited to win2k and happened in word (Office XP version) saved to a floppy disk. We had two reports of it on some old machines that still ran Win2k, but we assumed the bluescreens or freezes were hardware related since the particular model they were using had notoriously bad motherboards. We reminded the users that they had a network drive avaiable to them and that they should not use floppy disks for any reason.
We later saw a hotfix released by MS that described the issue.
This isn't a reply directly to the parent AC, but to this thread in general. Everyone here has been bickering on about how one might or might not be able to get root access on a Mac machine, but to me that's silly becuase it's an argument that is largely irrelevant.
Brining the topic of root access up is a giant red herring in this security argument because not having root access doesn't keep one from using a computer. If I'm a malware writer who is looking to bring Macs into my botnet, as long I can get my code executed on the target machine, I can turn that computer into a drone that does my bidding. Certainly, root access is preferred, as there are certain things I can't do without root, but I still do plenty without it.
M$ and Firefox manage to release security patches that install themselves. Why can't/won't Oracle do the same?
Interestingly enough, jsut a few years ago, MS SQL Server patches were shipped as archives with updates binaries and you had to replace each file by hand and I think in some cases, run scripts. When slammer came out and borked 80% of the worlds SQL servers, Microsoft realized that the monkeys running their products were probably too stupid to manually apply the patches, and changed their patches so they were automated.
"The main area to focus on is new development. This is an area where PostgreSQL, for instance, is really shining. It offers many of the features needed by large, corporate data infrastructures, while offering almost none of the problems associated with Oracle's offerings. In the near future, we likely won't be hearing anywhere near as much about Oracle as we do today, since it just won't be a component of most of the information systems of tomorrow."
After spending a little bit of time with MS SQL Server 2005, and seeing the massive improvement over MS SQL 2000, I have to think that some of Oracle's marketshare might just slip into MSFT's hands too. Besides clustering support being improved drastically over 2000, alot of the changes in SQL 2005 revolve around development support.
Your points about Windows are well taken. When looking at them all, I see that just about all of your gripes (many of them are my gripes too) are the result of Microsoft worshipping the God of backward compatibility, a God who's ways Apple has routinely cursed and discarded over the years...at their own peril.
In short, I agree. Cruft sucks, but it's a 'crufty world'.
"It's called sarcasm, jackass. My point is that it is most certainly not simple."
Classic. Get called on your lack of a clue and then defend it by claming you were making a joke.
You can go back to your corner and play with your USE flags now.
Please describe the "limitations" Windows brings.
;)
Yes, security is a potential problem with Windows, but not what I would call a limitation. Hell, if you were a MS astroturfer, you could even tout is as a feature (look at all of the viruses the WIndows can run that Macs can't!*).
But seriosuly, both platforms have limitations. Windows can not run some of the neato "i____" apps that Mac comes with and Mac's can't run most games and certain other apps. To describe WIndows and the only OS with "limitations" is a bit baised IMO.
*That was a joke...sort of.
It can't because it uses the same security mechanism as "ctr+alt+delete" logon, where only a local device (keyboard/Mouse), *OR* a process that already has the administrator token (like the RDP or a VNC service) can touch it. Even if the user is an administrator, with UAC enabled, (s)he has a regular user security token by default, so spyware, if executed would start out with the regular user token and not be able to touch the UAC dialog box.
You are one to talk. Giving the "BUILTIN\users" security principal full controll is all that's neccessary. Taking ownership of the files would be at best redundant, and at worst, completely useless.
"Tell me how to get Monsters Inc. Scream Team Training to run on a non-admin account without me manually entering an admin pw into Run As... every time and I'll be unbelievably grateful."
Check out the "utility" I advertise in my sig. It's a (ugly) hack, but it works, and it's relatively secure. You would still have to enter a password, but it's your OWN password, which can afford be less complicated since it's a regular user account.
Also, if you want to actually try and fix the program, a utility not mentioned in this thread, aclview. It's freeware a program for managing ACLs for XP. It's particularly useful for XP Home users, as it allows you to modify file permissions without having to use using cacls.exe or reboot into safe mode.
2006 - 1991 = 20 ?
Looks like the editors went to public school.
ARPANET?
Look up the word innovation in the dictionary. It does not mean what I think you think it means.
And apparently fine tuning is in order. In a recent postfix update notification (4/6/2006), the author of postfix wrote this:
"Excluding Outlook Express I guess."
Perhaps it's part of their market effort to get people to uprade to Outlook.
Microsoft runs these bug-checker-programs on their code all the time.
I heard it requires an actual lab now where they bork up a domain and require you to fix it. Is that true?
There are many great examples of abuse in the civil courts, but I don't think the McDonalds coffee lawsuit is one of them.
See this.
And for the minimalists who hate bloat, or the h4x0rs want to download torrents with their zombie linux boxes, there is ctorrent.
I've read that a RHCE cert is like an MCSE - in that you can cram for it and pass it without really "getting it". But I don't think there is any hurt in getting one.
My work sent me to a bunch of Win2k/AD training classes a few years ago and I got a "Learning Tree" certificate out of it. Though I really did learn a ton of usefull stuff about Active Directory in those classes, I wouldn't be impressed if I saw a learning tree cert on someones resume. I say this because there were a *ton* of dumbasses in my learning tree classes - who passed the tests.
"So. Where are the viruses, then? It's been at least five years."
They are all targeting the platform with users.
The only medium by which market share has no effect in regards to the propagation of worms are vulnerable daemons on open ports (Google the the blackICE worm for proof of that), and MacOSX doesn't have 'em. The other two main mediums - Email and web, need a sufficient pool of potential recipients in order to be viable.
Do yourself a favor and actually think about the logistics involved with spreading an email or web virus. If you send out an email to 100,000 email addresses, how many of them will be read by Windows users, and how many will be read by Mac users? Of those, what percentage will actually fall for it? The number too quicly reaches zero on the Mac side of things.
Now think about Web Vulnerabilities. Lets say you put a spyware installer that uses a Safari vulnerability on your web site. How many Mac users will actually visit that site? Of those how many will be using the vulnerable version or Safari, or be using Safari at all?
To the issue of user awareness. Lets say, just for the sake of argument, that Mac users are more savvy than Windows users and wouldn't fall for social engineering tricks as often. If OSX took a huge chunk of Market share away from Windows, do you honestly think all of those users who made the switch would suddenly become more security savvy? It makes sense to me that they would bring their ignorance over.
A few things that you seem to not get:
1) Malware does not require root permissions to install itself and do the things it needs to do (spam, DoS, etc).
2) Apple has plenty of their own apps with vulnerabilities. They don't need Outlook or IE.
3) The privilege separation in Windows works fine. The problem lies in the fact that it's not taken advantage of by most.
4) The most common method of worm propagation is email, not open ports. Apple users use email, right?
Apple users are not inherently more savvy that users of any other OS. If 80% of desktops ran OSX, there would plenty of suckers out there that would fall for email worms, or visit a website exploiting the latest Safari (or Firefox) vulnerability.
"a BSD licensed driver for nvidia nforce ethernet"
PLEASE, for love of Beastie, port this over to FreeBSD. The existing nve driver in FreeBSD is a POS.
Yes