There is reason that people call Macs 100% secure and immune to any attempts at remote attack. Its because its true. Linux has been breached, OpenBSD has had two remote root incidents. MacOS? Zero, zip, nada.
I'll say again - the biggest vulnerability that apple has is the huge bunch of users who believe they are invulnerable and that patches either don't exist or they are not worth applying.
Remember th month of apple bugs? Do you think that was a complete list without any other exploits being available?
You do believe that? Then you might be able to help my uncle move a huge amout of cash out of nigeria where he is falsely imprisoned. Please post your email address and we can continue directly.
>if that were to happen, Firefox and Opera would do everything possible to catch up immediately.
But firefox doesn't pass acid2 either. I must have missed your point (or you're wrong)
Why should I? You started the unsubstantiated claims; YOU prove it. The origonal accusation was that windows is less secure than a mac, in spite of the recent stuff that's gone on with apple. You offer no proof and almost imply that it's self evident.
You made a completly unsubstantiated statement and I called BS with a similar amount of proof as you had.
I would put a fully patched XP against any fully patched linux with a default install, and I'd be quite interested in the result. I don't know vista personally but I'd expect it to be about the same. BTW if you don't patch anything then it's a stupid test - I'm not talking about making esoteric configuration, just get updated patches for the OS. These days the security comparisons are getting nitpicky. Both linux & Windows are pretty decent thesee days until you start putting applications on them. Apple tho... well not so great. When it comes to apple - the fanboys themselves are the biggest vulnerbility, they don't believe they NEED to patch.
Try looking here for some insight - and yes I know - there's a LOT of window, linux and BSD there too http://nvd.nist.gov/nvd.cfm
No OS is secure - Apple less so than some. The old claim that "apple is more secure" is turning out to be a modern version of The Emperor's New Clothes - only uttered by fanboys and the ignorant
Blast... I wasn't going to offer evidence, oh well - the fanboys won't see any
maybe less attacked or have fewer exploits in the wilds (nb exploit - not vulnerability) but only a fanboy or the ignorant actually believe apple is MORE secure than windows. Well ok - maybe more secure than win98.
Apple security comes through it's obscurity - not by design.
Would Apple be able to withstand any of the things that MS were convicted of?
The ONLY thing that Apple has in it's defense is that hardly anyone uses them. Marketshare is a pretty weak defense against the type of anti-compeditive behaviour that Apple deal in. The way they've locked out compeditors from adding apps to ipod is downright criminal.
oh dear, didn't preview and stuffed up the link - well HERE is that dumb comic from microsoft. But I really don't recommend going there if you've looked at the force cartoons... how much can you stomach???
The MSDNAA programme is hardly new. Students have been able to take away pro and sometimes enterprise level tools for years under that scheme. Hey - there's even the source code to NT4 lying there somewhere (look for Windows Research Kernel Source Code or WRK). You can get pretty much all OS's (not Bob sorry) all free
90 percent of respondents are planning to increase or keep the same (very healthy) level of investment in open source.
Clearly, if the projects weren't working out, we'd see this number come in much lower.
I've worked in healthcare IT (admitidly in a differentcentuary). The idea that bad projects would lead to a change in behaviour is a really nice fantasy. The reality is more like continually banging your head on a brick wall, when it hurts bang some more to see if it lessens, repeat.
I never said it wasn't wrong. I do insist that calling it theft is inaccurate.
As I say in another reply - counterfieting does indeed devalue money. But (perhaps perversly) counterfieting software actually enhances the value of the software.
Yes it's wrong. Any business caught using pirated software deserves to get slammed. But don't underestimate amount of value added to software when it is heavily pirated. It increases the market share of the software - and when the pirating people need to use it legitimatly they WILL pay because the risks are too high. These days the big players (MS, Oracle, etc) usually go out of their way to give small versions away for this very reason.
If someone can copy all of my paycheck with the result that my paycheck remains unchanged in any way - then I am very very happy for everyone to do so.
Is software less valuable when more people use it or more so? Does counterfieting software, and increasing the market share of the software, make it less vauable? Or, are you (in a very cunning way) just trying to prove that copying software is an extremly different thing to property theft.
piracy takes money out of the hands of those who deserve it. imagine if your employer, tax office, or ex-wives, were to consider your paycheck casual and freely remove it from you and do whatever it or they pleased, including shoving it where the sun dont shine. i think you would do something, no? or are you a pussy and shrug your puny shoulders, yes? then we are in agreement.
your argument is invalid
In the cases you give I am deprived of the product which is "pirated". Copying does not deprive the source of the product. You are making a very very strange comparison between copying and theft.
Let me put it this way... if someone can take my paycheck, and leave me with exactly every cent in that paycheck, then they are welcome to it and I invite everyone to do the same.
not that I've ever encountered pirated software mind you
I would apply that to someone moving jobs ever 6 months. I think moving every 18 months - 3 years is a GOOD thing if they can show in an interview that the move was calculated as a way of gaining better, broader experience & skills. I am more interested in an analysis of the changes along with reasons and comments from previous employers (not the latest - who may want to get rid of them)
I have littel patience for the kids demanding more than they deserve.
I think that's a very heathy attitude. The kids need to learn that they need to earn respect. That comes as quite a shock for some. Just as long as you're willing to grant it when DO they deserve it.
The 'retention' problem is not because this generation wants the kitchen sink; it's because these companies don't have any money to buy kitchens.
Yes, and there's an economical balancing act which takes place. The unrealistic employee either accepts a lower rate or they go hungry (and I mean unrealistic, not just ambitious).
I don't think moving around a little to gain that experience and find the right match is necessarily bad.
No only isn't it "necessarily bad", I think it is a positivly Good Thing
(TM). Moving around gives a graduate a range of experiences on both the technical level (develop skills etc) but also a range of experiences with various people and ways of working & doing business. All of this helps create a well rounded and skilled professional when then start to grow up and remain longer in jobs.
However, if you're an employer who wants to spend peanuts then you should expect to get either
Someone with little experience (who will leave when they see they've developed skills someone will actually pay for)
someone who can't get a better gig right now and promises to remain for ages (but won't)
someone who can't get a job with better conditions because they are actually worth the little you pay, or maybe worth a little less
A mixture of the above
Bottom line is - if you pay peanuts you get monkeys. Some monkeys will develop well and you should treat their tenure as a bonus. The monkeys you wish would leave, won't; and then you've got to consult your local labour laws
You must have a very limited set of contacts. Most people I know who have purchased a PC in the last year are NOT geeks. I don't know of a single person who has gone out of their way to install XP on their PC, and I would be totally blown away if any of these people installed Linux. Not a single one of them is a "fanboy" - they are your average Mum & Dad and small business who use whatever is on their PC, pretty much treating it as an appliance. THESE are the people who form the majority of computer users. And they are the reason why any IT support person needs to come to grip with Vista, because one day it will dominate just as XP dominates now (which btw was a big yawn for a few years after release)
Vista, like it's predecessors XP, Win2k... hell go back to Win3 & Dos... got adopted and dominated the PC space through hardware purchase NOT by people buying off the shelf and installing on a PC which had a previous OS. When the home market is saturated it seems the business world follows for the desktop. I'm not sure if there's a causal relationship there but it does seem to be a trend.
Having said that, the person I know who prefers netmon on Vista IS a geek (an IT student). She runs several Debian systems at home (desktop and servers) but prefers Vista on her laptop. Again - not a fanboy, I think she's pretty well balanced actually.
It's actually a network monitor screenshot (netmon) not wireshark. They look similar but they aren't the same thing. I prefer wireshark myself, but I know a couple of people who have converted to netmon for sniffing wireless on vista
Slashdot Mirror
No we're not.
true - i don't
did you even click on the link for the nvd?
I'll say again - the biggest vulnerability that apple has is the huge bunch of users who believe they are invulnerable and that patches either don't exist or they are not worth applying.
Remember th month of apple bugs? Do you think that was a complete list without any other exploits being available?
You do believe that? Then you might be able to help my uncle move a huge amout of cash out of nigeria where he is falsely imprisoned. Please post your email address and we can continue directly.
>if that were to happen, Firefox and Opera would do everything possible to catch up immediately. But firefox doesn't pass acid2 either. I must have missed your point (or you're wrong)
You made a completly unsubstantiated statement and I called BS with a similar amount of proof as you had.
I would put a fully patched XP against any fully patched linux with a default install, and I'd be quite interested in the result. I don't know vista personally but I'd expect it to be about the same. BTW if you don't patch anything then it's a stupid test - I'm not talking about making esoteric configuration, just get updated patches for the OS. These days the security comparisons are getting nitpicky. Both linux & Windows are pretty decent thesee days until you start putting applications on them. Apple tho ... well not so great. When it comes to apple - the fanboys themselves are the biggest vulnerbility, they don't believe they NEED to patch.
Try looking here for some insight - and yes I know - there's a LOT of window, linux and BSD there too http://nvd.nist.gov/nvd.cfm
No OS is secure - Apple less so than some. The old claim that "apple is more secure" is turning out to be a modern version of The Emperor's New Clothes - only uttered by fanboys and the ignorant
Blast ... I wasn't going to offer evidence, oh well - the fanboys won't see any
ummmm - no
maybe less attacked or have fewer exploits in the wilds (nb exploit - not vulnerability) but only a fanboy or the ignorant actually believe apple is MORE secure than windows. Well ok - maybe more secure than win98.
Apple security comes through it's obscurity - not by design.
you didn't REALLY expect to get useful technical information information from DIG did you?
oh
wait ...
oh come on!
Would Apple be able to withstand any of the things that MS were convicted of?
The ONLY thing that Apple has in it's defense is that hardly anyone uses them. Marketshare is a pretty weak defense against the type of anti-compeditive behaviour that Apple deal in. The way they've locked out compeditors from adding apps to ipod is downright criminal.
oh dear, didn't preview and stuffed up the link - well HERE is that dumb comic from microsoft. But I really don't recommend going there if you've looked at the force cartoons ... how much can you stomach???
http://blogs.technet.com/hhh_comic">heros happen here is just as bad ... and possibly worse
>I know you guys like to look towards him as a guru but for the rest of the world
>he looks like a smelly hipp
oh I think he more than LOOKS like that - but I've never got close enough tosniff
The MSDNAA programme is hardly new. Students have been able to take away pro and sometimes enterprise level tools for years under that scheme. Hey - there's even the source code to NT4 lying there somewhere (look for Windows Research Kernel Source Code or WRK). You can get pretty much all OS's (not Bob sorry) all free
As I say in another reply - counterfieting does indeed devalue money. But (perhaps perversly) counterfieting software actually enhances the value of the software.
Yes it's wrong. Any business caught using pirated software deserves to get slammed. But don't underestimate amount of value added to software when it is heavily pirated. It increases the market share of the software - and when the pirating people need to use it legitimatly they WILL pay because the risks are too high. These days the big players (MS, Oracle, etc) usually go out of their way to give small versions away for this very reason.
If someone can copy all of my paycheck with the result that my paycheck remains unchanged in any way - then I am very very happy for everyone to do so.
Is software less valuable when more people use it or more so? Does counterfieting software, and increasing the market share of the software, make it less vauable? Or, are you (in a very cunning way) just trying to prove that copying software is an extremly different thing to property theft.
In the cases you give I am deprived of the product which is "pirated". Copying does not deprive the source of the product. You are making a very very strange comparison between copying and theft.
Let me put it this way ... if someone can take my paycheck, and leave me with exactly every cent in that paycheck, then they are welcome to it and I invite everyone to do the same.
not that I've ever encountered pirated software mind you
I would apply that to someone moving jobs ever 6 months. I think moving every 18 months - 3 years is a GOOD thing if they can show in an interview that the move was calculated as a way of gaining better, broader experience & skills. I am more interested in an analysis of the changes along with reasons and comments from previous employers (not the latest - who may want to get rid of them)
I think that's a very heathy attitude. The kids need to learn that they need to earn respect. That comes as quite a shock for some. Just as long as you're willing to grant it when DO they deserve it.
No only isn't it "necessarily bad", I think it is a positivly Good Thing (TM). Moving around gives a graduate a range of experiences on both the technical level (develop skills etc) but also a range of experiences with various people and ways of working & doing business. All of this helps create a well rounded and skilled professional when then start to grow up and remain longer in jobs.
However, if you're an employer who wants to spend peanuts then you should expect to get either
- Someone with little experience (who will leave when they see they've developed skills someone will actually pay for)
- someone who can't get a better gig right now and promises to remain for ages (but won't)
- someone who can't get a job with better conditions because they are actually worth the little you pay, or maybe worth a little less
- A mixture of the above
Bottom line is - if you pay peanuts you get monkeys. Some monkeys will develop well and you should treat their tenure as a bonus. The monkeys you wish would leave, won't; and then you've got to consult your local labour lawsAm I the only one who clicked on this carelessly wondering what new snort filters someone was playing with?
You must have a very limited set of contacts. Most people I know who have purchased a PC in the last year are NOT geeks. I don't know of a single person who has gone out of their way to install XP on their PC, and I would be totally blown away if any of these people installed Linux. Not a single one of them is a "fanboy" - they are your average Mum & Dad and small business who use whatever is on their PC, pretty much treating it as an appliance. THESE are the people who form the majority of computer users. And they are the reason why any IT support person needs to come to grip with Vista, because one day it will dominate just as XP dominates now (which btw was a big yawn for a few years after release)
... hell go back to Win3 & Dos ... got adopted and dominated the PC space through hardware purchase NOT by people buying off the shelf and installing on a PC which had a previous OS. When the home market is saturated it seems the business world follows for the desktop. I'm not sure if there's a causal relationship there but it does seem to be a trend.
Vista, like it's predecessors XP, Win2k
Having said that, the person I know who prefers netmon on Vista IS a geek (an IT student). She runs several Debian systems at home (desktop and servers) but prefers Vista on her laptop. Again - not a fanboy, I think she's pretty well balanced actually.
It's actually a network monitor screenshot (netmon) not wireshark. They look similar but they aren't the same thing. I prefer wireshark myself, but I know a couple of people who have converted to netmon for sniffing wireless on vista
for code scavenging try this instead / as-well
http://www.google.com/codesearch
>IBM seems to get that technical support is a better way to make money than bundling software.
ummmm - have you SEEN the price of IBM software?
I've never understood that saying - Selling code multiple times always beats selling time