A very interesting observation. But I think it would be more expensive because of Apple's stringent hardware standards, not because of the OS component. Also, Apple is currently a "designer" product. While there is some overlap, it isn't targeting the exact same market as Windows.
While I'm sure you'll be bashed, you're right. Outlook is fantastic -- from the point of view of the end-user.
Exchange, on the other hand... is a terrible back-end. Outlook isn't that hot either when it comes to sending mail or meeting requests to non-Outlook users. And its IMAP support is (IMO) intentionally broken. But most users never see that, they just see the pretty UI. Outlook is one of the few applications that Microsoft deserves any praise for.
I'm not sure that NMD even works as "well" as you describe. In the case of North Korea, Kim won't nuke Seattle*, his target is Seoul. In the case of Iraq, if Saddam did have WMDs he wouldn't have launched them against Orlando*, he'd hit Israel. North American NMD wouldn't matter, even if it existed, even if it worked.
* Of course it's highly unlikely that Kim has the tech to launch across the Pacific (Japan is as far as Taepo-Dong will go). And nobody in the Middle East can hit a target on the other side of the Atlantic.
Though the idea that we would launch a preemptive nuclear attack is far-fetched, it isn't beyond the realm of possibility, especially given our preemptive war with Iraq. As long as someone *thinks* there's a *possibility* of it happening, it will act as a deterrent. So that's the good part.
The problem is, it's ultra-expensive, may not actually work, and it only deters state actors. NMD certainly doesn't hinder terrorists, who we're told could put a nuke on a shipping container sent to one of our ports (and it's not at all clear who we would nuke in retaliation). To use an old analogy, NMD is like spending a billion dollars to lock your windows, while leaving the front door wide open.
They said it was a stock installation and Windows file sharing isn't enabled on a stock OS X installation.
Then again they also said that OS X comes with the firewall off by default. I'm pretty sure my Macs actually came with the firewall ON by default, but it's been a while.
Any computer with a proper firewall (one that is on by default and doesn't bug the user with meaningless warnings -- e.g. the default firewall in OS X, most versions of Linux, and even XPSP2) isn't particularly insecure when placed on an open wireless network. The only hard decision for the user is picking the right computer and OS.
A friend buys a Windows PC. Eventually I will almost certainly have to repair their system after they load a trojan, get a virus, or spyware. If they call me about their computer it's something messy, like a driver that doesn't work or a corrupt registry.
A friend buys a Mac. I never have to repair their computer. If they call me it's for advice on Word or Photoshop features. They never, ever call me regarding viruses/trojans or spyware. I never need to repair their system.
I know this is anecdotal, but it happens time and time again. Ask anyone who supports both Macs and PCs and they'll tell you.
So from my point-of-view, it doesn't matter whether the Mac is theoretically insecure. In my real-world experience I would much rather have my friends and family using Macs -- and that's just because of security, not to mention the other advantages of OS X.
When "Tab" came out in 1963 it was sweetened with saccharin and cyclamates, not aspartame. It wasn't until the mid-80's that a version with a combination of aspartame and saccharin was introduced.
Re:Some "security" is based on zigs instead of zag
on
Safe and Insecure?
·
· Score: 1
Open is the new closed. If a host pretends that all 65535 possible ports are open (accepts connections, but doesn't do anything with them), that is much much harder to compromise than a host which is "stealthed". After all, it's possible to find out which ports are open on a stealthed machine. It just takes longer. If they're all (apparently) open, you'll never know which ones are actually in use.
You had no problems with Windows... therefore there must not be problems. I too have had some Windows machines that were stable over a long period of time, but what the guy describes is all too common.
I can't tell you how many long evenings I've spent rebuilding someone's Windows computer because they did something seemingly innocuous that messed up their registry; or how I cringe when people tell me how much "faster" their new computer is -- I know their old computer would probably be just as fast if Windows was re-installed fresh.
Although I normally have a hardware firewall present, I have had to rebuild systems without one and you get infected instantly.
By contrast, the number of evenings and weekends I've spent rebuilding Macs -- and my Mac users are just as clueless as my Windows users -- is, exactly, zero.
The problem is systemic to Microsoft's OS. The poor quality crap for Mac OS (and Linux and FreeBSD) doesn't mess up the system to the same degree. It's just as crappy but it can always be fixed in a logical manner, and without digging through tens of thousands of registry GUIDs, and without reinstalling the OS.
The best way I could describe Windows is "brittle". It is very solid right up until you reach its breaking point, then it shatters into a thousand pieces.
Re:Interesting name: Sendmails..
on
Paid To Spam
·
· Score: 1
I would hope the real Sendmail corporation issues a cease-and-desist order ASAP. Not that that will stop these guys for long.
Deny outbound traffic to port 25, and allow outbound traffic to port 587 (submission).
The whole point of the submission port is that it's a regular SMTP port that only accepts authenticated connections -- therefeore it won't accept incoming mail (except from an authenticated user of course). It doesn't require any changes to mail clients, and minimal changes to mail servers, and it's safe to let through the firewall at the Internet cafe.
The Onion AV site where the article is posted hosts obnoxious audio advertisements. ("Hi there, my name is Tina. In the next 30 seconds I will show you how to speed up your computer dramatically...")
Even the US market as a whole is just a fraction of the world market. Large manufacturers could easily afford to ignore the US Government/Military markets.
Apple has played a role in legitimizing the one-click patent. They have in fact licensed the one-click patent from Amazon, for use on their web site and now in the iTunes Music Store.
Perhaps Amazon will be interested in licensing "Allowances".
Slashdot Mirror
I believe spreadsheet application would be the correct Mac terminlogy.
A very interesting observation. But I think it would be more expensive because of Apple's stringent hardware standards, not because of the OS component. Also, Apple is currently a "designer" product. While there is some overlap, it isn't targeting the exact same market as Windows.
Of course, this has nothing to do with SPAM
So it has nothing to do with canned ham (SPAM), but does it have anything to do with junk e-mail (spam)?
I'm not sure why people call this stuff spyware.
- Malicious software developed by college student in the Philippines == virus
- Malicious software developed by a marketing company == spyware?
A better name for this stuff is commercial virus. You shouldn't need separate products to deal with "traditional" and commercial viruses.OSDL doesn't sell advertising, and isn't related to Slashdot or OSTG .
While I'm sure you'll be bashed, you're right. Outlook is fantastic -- from the point of view of the end-user.
Exchange, on the other hand... is a terrible back-end. Outlook isn't that hot either when it comes to sending mail or meeting requests to non-Outlook users. And its IMAP support is (IMO) intentionally broken. But most users never see that, they just see the pretty UI. Outlook is one of the few applications that Microsoft deserves any praise for.
I'm not sure that NMD even works as "well" as you describe. In the case of North Korea, Kim won't nuke Seattle*, his target is Seoul. In the case of Iraq, if Saddam did have WMDs he wouldn't have launched them against Orlando*, he'd hit Israel. North American NMD wouldn't matter, even if it existed, even if it worked.
* Of course it's highly unlikely that Kim has the tech to launch across the Pacific (Japan is as far as Taepo-Dong will go). And nobody in the Middle East can hit a target on the other side of the Atlantic.
Though the idea that we would launch a preemptive nuclear attack is far-fetched, it isn't beyond the realm of possibility, especially given our preemptive war with Iraq. As long as someone *thinks* there's a *possibility* of it happening, it will act as a deterrent. So that's the good part.
The problem is, it's ultra-expensive, may not actually work, and it only deters state actors. NMD certainly doesn't hinder terrorists, who we're told could put a nuke on a shipping container sent to one of our ports (and it's not at all clear who we would nuke in retaliation). To use an old analogy, NMD is like spending a billion dollars to lock your windows, while leaving the front door wide open.
Err... this is what I saw in the study abstract:
... Macintosh OS X 10.3.5."
"The TTLN project tested the following stock environments on an open Internet connection using SBC Yahoo DSL:
I don't see where they mentioned turning on the Mac's Windows File Sharing capability but I guess I could have missed it.
I would be interested in a list of the passwords attempted by the worms since they managed to compromise the SBS2003 and winXP1 boxes that way.
The list of passwords attempted by worms is here (pointless cookie acknowledgement and second attempt to load URL required).
And of course they could be trying other passwords as well...
They said it was a stock installation and Windows file sharing isn't enabled on a stock OS X installation.
Then again they also said that OS X comes with the firewall off by default. I'm pretty sure my Macs actually came with the firewall ON by default, but it's been a while.
No. Wireless is not insecure. Windows is.
Lack of wireless encryption <> lack of security
Any computer with a proper firewall (one that is on by default and doesn't bug the user with meaningless warnings -- e.g. the default firewall in OS X, most versions of Linux, and even XPSP2) isn't particularly insecure when placed on an open wireless network. The only hard decision for the user is picking the right computer and OS.
I'm sorry, I hate to be a Mac zealot, but...
A friend buys a Windows PC. Eventually I will almost certainly have to repair their system after they load a trojan, get a virus, or spyware. If they call me about their computer it's something messy, like a driver that doesn't work or a corrupt registry.
A friend buys a Mac. I never have to repair their computer. If they call me it's for advice on Word or Photoshop features. They never, ever call me regarding viruses/trojans or spyware. I never need to repair their system.
I know this is anecdotal, but it happens time and time again. Ask anyone who supports both Macs and PCs and they'll tell you.
So from my point-of-view, it doesn't matter whether the Mac is theoretically insecure. In my real-world experience I would much rather have my friends and family using Macs -- and that's just because of security, not to mention the other advantages of OS X.
Will Cingular unlock your phone? I know T-Mobile will do it for customers who've been with them for longer than 3 months.
If they give you a SIM unlock code, you can then remove the Cingular SIM and purchase service from any other GSM provider.
Next up, YAMyUID, followed by KYAMyUID.
When "Tab" came out in 1963 it was sweetened with saccharin and cyclamates, not aspartame. It wasn't until the mid-80's that a version with a combination of aspartame and saccharin was introduced.
Open is the new closed. If a host pretends that all 65535 possible ports are open (accepts connections, but doesn't do anything with them), that is much much harder to compromise than a host which is "stealthed". After all, it's possible to find out which ports are open on a stealthed machine. It just takes longer. If they're all (apparently) open, you'll never know which ones are actually in use.
You had no problems with Windows... therefore there must not be problems. I too have had some Windows machines that were stable over a long period of time, but what the guy describes is all too common.
I can't tell you how many long evenings I've spent rebuilding someone's Windows computer because they did something seemingly innocuous that messed up their registry; or how I cringe when people tell me how much "faster" their new computer is -- I know their old computer would probably be just as fast if Windows was re-installed fresh.
Although I normally have a hardware firewall present, I have had to rebuild systems without one and you get infected instantly.
By contrast, the number of evenings and weekends I've spent rebuilding Macs -- and my Mac users are just as clueless as my Windows users -- is, exactly, zero.
The problem is systemic to Microsoft's OS. The poor quality crap for Mac OS (and Linux and FreeBSD) doesn't mess up the system to the same degree. It's just as crappy but it can always be fixed in a logical manner, and without digging through tens of thousands of registry GUIDs, and without reinstalling the OS.
The best way I could describe Windows is "brittle". It is very solid right up until you reach its breaking point, then it shatters into a thousand pieces.
I would hope the real Sendmail corporation issues a cease-and-desist order ASAP. Not that that will stop these guys for long.
Guess which player is commonly associated with reading AAC files: iTunes.
Actually RealPlayer is a much more common AAC player.
Deny outbound traffic to port 25, and allow outbound traffic to port 587 (submission).
The whole point of the submission port is that it's a regular SMTP port that only accepts authenticated connections -- therefeore it won't accept incoming mail (except from an authenticated user of course). It doesn't require any changes to mail clients, and minimal changes to mail servers, and it's safe to let through the firewall at the Internet cafe.
The Onion AV site where the article is posted hosts obnoxious audio advertisements. ("Hi there, my name is Tina. In the next 30 seconds I will show you how to speed up your computer dramatically...")
Not pleasant at all at 5:30 AM.
Even the US market as a whole is just a fraction of the world market. Large manufacturers could easily afford to ignore the US Government/Military markets.
Apple has played a role in legitimizing the one-click patent. They have in fact licensed the one-click patent from Amazon, for use on their web site and now in the iTunes Music Store.
Perhaps Amazon will be interested in licensing "Allowances".