No but I can read. You should try it sometime, it's a skill that can go a long way. I don't even develop java applications nevermind have anything to do with SpringSource. If you don't believe me about how prevalent Spring is then just look up some Java job listings.
Ubuntu is used on less than 1% of desktops. The spring framework is used in something like 50% of enterprises that use a java application framework. Your analogy is not even remotely useful.
Funny, I am a Java developer (and one who works on fairly new web framework code, to boot). I know about Spring, although I don't use it. I had no idea that SpringSource was the company pushing it. I have a hard time imagining that Hyperic's offering was the one thing stopping major enterprises from using them, also...
There is nothing stoping major enterprises from using the Spring Framework. They already are. Hyperic has had a relationship with SpringSource for a while now. This just allows them to control and support everything from end to end.
...even I know that SpringSource is behind the Spring Framework which is one of the most popular Java Enterprise Frameworks in use today. It's not like they aren't already in the market. This aquisition just allows SpringSource to have an end to end solution. Most of the comments so far are completely devoid of any knowledge on the subject whatsoever. A quick read through the article and a google search for SpringSource would be enough to enlighten people why this is important. Unfortunately that is too much to ask from most slashdotters.
On the positive side, a properly implemented ZFS in Linux would be awesome.
Good luck getting ZFS into mainline. Even if the source is GPL'd it's not going to be an easy task. It has a lot of the same issues as Reiser4. There is a ton of stuff that Linus doesn't think should be in the filesystem itself but at another layer. There is a better chance that some concepts will make it into the kernel but I doubt the FS ever will.
XFS can be tuned for greater performance with options at creation time and mount time. I loved Reiser3's performance but there are too many missing features. I switched to XFS about 2 years ago and haven't looked back since. Small files are still slower to delete but after tuning the system it isn't really that bad at all.
I went to two of those tea parties. I protested on behalf of the fools and of the successful. Neither extreme, nor anyone in between, should be forced to give up their property against their will.
I suggest you find somewhere else to live then because taxation is enshrined in our Constitution and I doubt you'll escape it anywhere you go unless you like living in a third world country. Personally I'm happy to have roads, police, and fireman amongst other things. People with the view that all taxation is forceful property forfeiture are in the extreme minority in any civilized country so I doubt your ideas are going to gain any traction here.
None of those should exist either. As for people's focus on the short-term, it should be no surprise that with a Federal Reserve capable of swaying the entire economy with the snap of the fingers of a Chairman, or political pressure from the Treasury, that people are forced to live day-to-day. Whatever happened to the 99-year-loans of a century ago?
Fed bashing seems to be in style today, all the way from the extreme right to the extreme left. What I haven't heard from a single person with this view is how we are supposed to operate our economy without the Federal Reserve. Before the Federal Reserve was created the economy was incredibly unstable. The Federal Reserve can indeed have a major impact on the economy depending on the things like interest rates but how that correlates exactly to people being "forced to live day-to-day" is beyond me. I don't think you can adequately explain the connection between the existance of the Federal Reserve and people living day-to-day. I would love to hear you try though.
The proper solution is to get the government - or any entity with a monopoly on force - out of the market. Then economic power will cease to have its political connotation.
That's a scary proposition. Just look what happened when the governement broke down existing rules of separation between investment banks and holding banks. We got all kinds of exotic things like collateralized debt obligations and credit default swaps. The banks basically tried to create good credit from a boatload of bad credit. Then they sold insurance policies for their shitty credit and sold the policies to other banks not even involved in the original transaction basically creating a system where banks were betting on loans defaulting so they could collect the insurance. The only way to keep the house of cards going was to give more loans. So they gave $500,000 loans to people without jobs. The whole thing sounds more like a casino than actual investment. We avoided this fiasco for 70 years because the government made it illegal after the Depression. How do you control this kind of greedy and destructive behavior without government intervention?
A tripling of debt is hardly digging yourself out. To me, it's more like digging deeper.
You're just pulling numbers out of your ass. Do you really believe that Obama is looking to spend 20 trillion dollars? I'd love to see where you came up with that figure.
Which tea party were you at?
The tea parties were retarded. There was a small one in my city. The only thing people there seemed to have in common with each other is their hate of Obama. It was a lot of hateful rhetoric without a clue of what they were actually protesting. It was actually quite amazing because Obama lowered taxes and spent more money and no one seemed to have a problem with that for the past 30 years even though they should have a had a problem with it all along. Now when Obama does it he is a called a socialist and people are in the streets protesting. It was quite a ridiculous scene. Unfortunately most Americans can't seem to stomach the fact that we are going to have to raise taxes in addition to reducing spending if we plan on getting out of this mess.
I don't know where you are getting 2 trillion dollars from. The stimulus bill was $787 billion and the omnibus bill for 2009 was $410 billion. That's around $1.2 trillion, which is less than the $555 billion omnibus bill + $700 billion bank bailout under Bush last year.
You will see the tax burden in the US raised to 75% or so, but healthcare will be free. And the taxes will be justified based on "now you have free healthcare". And since the taxes will only affect the top earners in the country, nobody in Alabama will notice, much.
This is inevitable. We have been grossly overspending/undertaxing for 30 years now. Our national debt is so enormous that 3% GDP is a drop in the bucket and nationalized healthcare has the potential to save billions because the costs are killing small businesses right now and drawing from such a large pool of people will reduce per person costs tremendously.
Except there will be no more small businesses, because they can't pay the taxes. Big businesses? No problem.
The 1950's were a good time for Americans even though top tax rates were about 90%. I doubt that many small businesses are really going to be affected because they generally do not make enough to qualify for the top tax bracket. Even if a small business does make a lot of money a high top tax rate will force them to spend more money on employees, R&D, investments, and other things to keep them from entering a higher tax bracket.
You mean the unprofitable automobile industry. The profitable industry (such as Toyota) is doing OK without Obama's help.
I didn't know you could be doing OK with a projected 4 billion dollar loss this year. A lot of people want to blame this soley on the US auto manufacturers but the truth is that it isn't the cars Detroit is making or the money their employees get paid. All car companies are doing poorly. Toyota is now asking for state money in Japan as are other Japanese automakers. The real issue is credit. The two things most Americans need loans for are a house and a car. Both those markets are having a tough time because credit is so hard to get now and things are so bad that even people with credit don't want to take the risk.
This isn't to say that Detroit is run smoothly and that the best choices are being made but if the entire banking system didn't explode we wouldn't be bailing any of them out and Chrysler would probably have been sold off long ago.
I agree with the GP that Apple had little problems with this and their market is of sufficient size to assume that Microsoft would fare just as well.
I don't think you can tell how Microsoft will fare in comparison to Apple. Microsoft is entrenched in the corporate market and many businesses have all sorts of wacky custom applications that they need supported. You don't see that as much with Apple. They don't have much of a presence in the business world other than graphic artists and not many people are writing custom Mac only software because they are not entrenched in the corporate market. Who knows how it will play out but I really don't think anyone can gauge it by Apple's successes.
A lifetime is generally unfair to a lot of authors - if the old dude wrote his greatest work only days, months, or two or three years before croaking, he and his estate make very little.
That's a problem how? You can't use money when you're dead and the estate didn't create the work, the author did. Why should the estate continue to collect for doing nothing? Hereditary wealth isn't something we should be promoting, especially in the US. It doesn't lend itself well to a meritocracy.
Sudo doesn't integrate with MAC. It's purely a DAC solution. With UAC you can launch a program as low integrity and if spawns a process that needs more privileges UAC will ask you for those priveleges. With sudo you have to be running with the highest priveleges necessary to run a program that spawns a process that requires elevated privileges. Sudo changes privileges based on users. UAC changes privileges based on integrity level. SELinux's main component is its MAC implementation so while Vista's security model isn't exactly equivalent, claiming that they are nothing alike is just not true. UAC is just the graphic interface to Vista's MAC. Sudo is an interface to the standard UNIX DAC model. I would say UAC has more in common with SELinux's security model than sudo. They may look like they the do something similar outwardly (privelege escalation) but the privelege escalation method is very different.
MIC and SElinux aren't really all that similar. MIC just basically assigns one of four categories to each process and puts each object in one of those four buckets, and disallows on that basis. SElinux, on the other hand, allows you to do much finer grained settings. More importantly, though, MIC sets object settings on a global basis, where SElinux can set them on a number of different dimensions.
My point was that UAC is more than a "thin skin around privelege escalation". It is not as simple as something like sudo. You are not automatically given full priveleges when UAC is invoked. You are only given enough priveleges to execute a program within the necessary integrity level.
Things like SElinux are actually quite a bit more advanced than UAC. Where UAC is pretty much just a thin skin around a priv escalation, SElinux exists to control the level of authority that a pretty thoroughly compromised program or account can exercise. Other tools, like libcap and korset, also exist to enforce the same principles at different layers.
That's not quite true. UAC is tied into Vista's MIC (Mandatory Integrity Control) which is very much like a MAC (Mandatory Access Control) system. SELinux implements MAC. It's actually not as different as you make it out to be.
I'm waiting for the coffee to brew so I'll take another run at this. First, the common assumption that OS X is not widely used is quaint for a platform that numbers in the tens of millions if not hundreds. At last count the number of iPhones and iPod touches alone was approaching 30 million. I haven't recently checked the numbers of desktop Macs but it is also nontrivial. An important point is that the sub-notebook market numbers are likely to eclipse the rest and OSX is well positioned to ride that trend to a dominant position.
The point, in case you missed it, was that OSX has a tiny percentage of marketshare on the desktop and even smaller in the server room. It's just not a large target compared to Windows on the desktop or Linux in the server room. The amount of iPhone's and iPod's has nothing to do with this conversation. Mobile hacking in general is nowhere near as popular as desktop hacking precisely because the market is much more fragmented.
The other quibble I have is with the idea of security as an absolute. For example, the fact that there are two or more techniques that have been recently developed to combat remote exploits and Apple has not been among the first to deploy them hence "OSX is inferior to Windows". This is related to the sniping one can see whenever Apple releases a patch to its OS that includes security fixes. The comments include observations like "I thought Apple was supposed to be perfect, how could a patch ever be required?"
You're quibbling with the wrong person then. I haven't said anything like what you are describing. I don't believe OSX is inferior to Windows. I hate Windows and I would prefer OSX to Windows but that doesn't change the fact that they are behind when it comes to security technology. You seem to be making the false assumption that just because OSX is less affected by security vulnerabilities that is also more secure. That's pretty dangerous thinking especially considering OSX seems to get more popular every year. The last thing we need is another group of users who think they can throw caution to the wind just because they are not using Windows.
Security is a never ending process, not a checkbox in a list of features. Actual threats, user behavior and experience, available tools and confidence in those tools all enter into the process. The only reasonable metric for evaluating the effectiveness of a platform's security is how well it fares in the real world of imperfect behavior of all those involved (e.g. percent who update to newest OS, apply patches, run systems to their advantage against exploits, etc). Over its thirty plus year history Apple has an imperfect but superior record in that regard and has done even better since the advent of OS X (which is closer to a clean break from the past than many realize since it was NextStep engulfing and swallowing Mac OS).
I think you're making a big mistake continuing with your assumption that OSX is a secure operating system just because it has been attacked less in the past. It's the same mistake some Linux users made a few years ago. Luckily some people understood that to be really secure the OS itself needed to be hardened. A buffer overflow is a buffer overflow and you're never going to eliminate them all unless you stop using languages like C altogether and that isn't going to happen anytime soon. Even if you do that's just one class of vulnerabilities. OSX needs a real RBAC system and more extensive memory relocation schemes to be taken seriously by any security professional as a secure operating system.
I agree that security is a process but it shouldn't be relegated to discovering bugs and patching them. You're never going to win that war because there will always be new vulnerabilities. You have to be prepared enough to stop unknown threats by limiting exposure through access controls and flat out stopping things like buffer overflows with address r
I again find your response disingenuous. For the vast majority of computer users the only useful options are Microsoft or Apple. Because of all the security/safety disasters suffered by customers of Microsoft there has been a continuing campaign to imply that switching to Apple is pointless because for various esoteric reasons you will get the same result.
I never said switching to Apple would be pointless. I'm just pointing out that the lack of viruses and exploits for OSX does not mean it is secure. Apple users have this false sense of security because their platform isn't widely used or attacked. It has been show time and time again that the exploits exist and they are not difficult to implement because of the lack of security.
In any case for casual web browsing I can use a login that does not have administrator privileges. Last time I bothered to check I had not even activated root access at all. Bottom line is that Windows users need to worry about viruses and OS X users have to listen to Windows users loudly proclaim that we are all in the same position. Ha!
I wouldn't know because I don't use Winodws. I do know that you are confusing relative safety with security though. OSX is relatively safer to use than Windows but is by no means more secure. Just because you haven't activated root access doesn't mean that no part of your system is running with full privleges. Overflow a vulnerable service and you have root access. OSX provides very little protection against software errors. Only in Leopard did they include limited ASLR and MAC. The protections are quite quaint compared to what is available on other systems.
You are aware that OSX isn't completely open source by any stretch of the imagination. It definitely is security through obscurity. Apple isn't making any attempts to obscure code but it's obscure enough for most script kiddies used to Windows and that is all they seem to be relying on. Why don't you actually look into what I said about OSX's lack of anti-hacking measures. Windows started introducing this stuff in XP SP2. Linux has had several different implementations for years. OSX introduced limited ASLR in Leopard. They are way behind in that respect. Now that people are letting all kinds of crap from the web run on their computers these types of protections are necessary and Apple certainly isn't leading the way with security technology. They seem to be limping along behind everyone else hoping no one has the urge to exploit something that has a tiny marketshare while they get their act together.
Do you know what OS the creator of that attack uses himself? He runs OSX on a MacBook Pro. It puts a rather interesting spin on the conclusion you want to draw.
No it doesn't. He plainly states that since OSX isn't as much of a target it's not as vulnerable in that sense. It's really security through obscurity and that really isn't security at all. Just because you are generally safer using OSX doesn't mean it's more secure.
What agenda is that? If you're going to accuse me and others of having an agenda then you might as well spell it out because I'm not quite sure what the hell you are talking about. Apple is no more secure than Windows, and in fact is probably less secure. Windows and Linux distributions have progressed to the point where they include a lot of anti-hacking measures while Apple is far behind in supporting the same schemes. I know the Mac fanboys just can't take the fact that their beloved OS has poor security but the facts are the facts. OSX needs more anti-hacking measures because it doesn't matter how well coded Apple's stuff is (or isn't), a 3rd party app like Flash can easily open up the system without any extra protections from OSX itself. This is why we have ASLR, PaX, ACLs, SSP, PIE, DEP, Sandboxing, etc. OSX has the security of a 20 year old UNIX and while some things have been making headway (ASLR) it's nowhere near the sophistication of a Linux or Windows solution. Linux and OSX are less of a target on the desktop for exploits but the difference is Apple became complacent over the past few years and did not stay on top of security innovations that were being implemented elsewhere.
Slashdot Mirror
No but I can read. You should try it sometime, it's a skill that can go a long way. I don't even develop java applications nevermind have anything to do with SpringSource. If you don't believe me about how prevalent Spring is then just look up some Java job listings.
Ubuntu is used on less than 1% of desktops. The spring framework is used in something like 50% of enterprises that use a java application framework. Your analogy is not even remotely useful.
No it isn't. They are already one of the most common, if not the most common, java enterprise frameworks in use today.
There is nothing stoping major enterprises from using the Spring Framework. They already are. Hyperic has had a relationship with SpringSource for a while now. This just allows them to control and support everything from end to end.
...even I know that SpringSource is behind the Spring Framework which is one of the most popular Java Enterprise Frameworks in use today. It's not like they aren't already in the market. This aquisition just allows SpringSource to have an end to end solution. Most of the comments so far are completely devoid of any knowledge on the subject whatsoever. A quick read through the article and a google search for SpringSource would be enough to enlighten people why this is important. Unfortunately that is too much to ask from most slashdotters.
Good luck getting ZFS into mainline. Even if the source is GPL'd it's not going to be an easy task. It has a lot of the same issues as Reiser4. There is a ton of stuff that Linus doesn't think should be in the filesystem itself but at another layer. There is a better chance that some concepts will make it into the kernel but I doubt the FS ever will.
XFS can be tuned for greater performance with options at creation time and mount time. I loved Reiser3's performance but there are too many missing features. I switched to XFS about 2 years ago and haven't looked back since. Small files are still slower to delete but after tuning the system it isn't really that bad at all.
The building I live in was built in 1917. It has the worst wiring I have ever seen yet my DSL works without a problem.
I suggest you find somewhere else to live then because taxation is enshrined in our Constitution and I doubt you'll escape it anywhere you go unless you like living in a third world country. Personally I'm happy to have roads, police, and fireman amongst other things. People with the view that all taxation is forceful property forfeiture are in the extreme minority in any civilized country so I doubt your ideas are going to gain any traction here.
Fed bashing seems to be in style today, all the way from the extreme right to the extreme left. What I haven't heard from a single person with this view is how we are supposed to operate our economy without the Federal Reserve. Before the Federal Reserve was created the economy was incredibly unstable. The Federal Reserve can indeed have a major impact on the economy depending on the things like interest rates but how that correlates exactly to people being "forced to live day-to-day" is beyond me. I don't think you can adequately explain the connection between the existance of the Federal Reserve and people living day-to-day. I would love to hear you try though.
That's a scary proposition. Just look what happened when the governement broke down existing rules of separation between investment banks and holding banks. We got all kinds of exotic things like collateralized debt obligations and credit default swaps. The banks basically tried to create good credit from a boatload of bad credit. Then they sold insurance policies for their shitty credit and sold the policies to other banks not even involved in the original transaction basically creating a system where banks were betting on loans defaulting so they could collect the insurance. The only way to keep the house of cards going was to give more loans. So they gave $500,000 loans to people without jobs. The whole thing sounds more like a casino than actual investment. We avoided this fiasco for 70 years because the government made it illegal after the Depression. How do you control this kind of greedy and destructive behavior without government intervention?
You're just pulling numbers out of your ass. Do you really believe that Obama is looking to spend 20 trillion dollars? I'd love to see where you came up with that figure.
The tea parties were retarded. There was a small one in my city. The only thing people there seemed to have in common with each other is their hate of Obama. It was a lot of hateful rhetoric without a clue of what they were actually protesting. It was actually quite amazing because Obama lowered taxes and spent more money and no one seemed to have a problem with that for the past 30 years even though they should have a had a problem with it all along. Now when Obama does it he is a called a socialist and people are in the streets protesting. It was quite a ridiculous scene. Unfortunately most Americans can't seem to stomach the fact that we are going to have to raise taxes in addition to reducing spending if we plan on getting out of this mess.
I don't know where you are getting 2 trillion dollars from. The stimulus bill was $787 billion and the omnibus bill for 2009 was $410 billion. That's around $1.2 trillion, which is less than the $555 billion omnibus bill + $700 billion bank bailout under Bush last year.
This is inevitable. We have been grossly overspending/undertaxing for 30 years now. Our national debt is so enormous that 3% GDP is a drop in the bucket and nationalized healthcare has the potential to save billions because the costs are killing small businesses right now and drawing from such a large pool of people will reduce per person costs tremendously.
The 1950's were a good time for Americans even though top tax rates were about 90%. I doubt that many small businesses are really going to be affected because they generally do not make enough to qualify for the top tax bracket. Even if a small business does make a lot of money a high top tax rate will force them to spend more money on employees, R&D, investments, and other things to keep them from entering a higher tax bracket.
I didn't know you could be doing OK with a projected 4 billion dollar loss this year. A lot of people want to blame this soley on the US auto manufacturers but the truth is that it isn't the cars Detroit is making or the money their employees get paid. All car companies are doing poorly. Toyota is now asking for state money in Japan as are other Japanese automakers. The real issue is credit. The two things most Americans need loans for are a house and a car. Both those markets are having a tough time because credit is so hard to get now and things are so bad that even people with credit don't want to take the risk.
This isn't to say that Detroit is run smoothly and that the best choices are being made but if the entire banking system didn't explode we wouldn't be bailing any of them out and Chrysler would probably have been sold off long ago.
I don't think you can tell how Microsoft will fare in comparison to Apple. Microsoft is entrenched in the corporate market and many businesses have all sorts of wacky custom applications that they need supported. You don't see that as much with Apple. They don't have much of a presence in the business world other than graphic artists and not many people are writing custom Mac only software because they are not entrenched in the corporate market. Who knows how it will play out but I really don't think anyone can gauge it by Apple's successes.
That's a problem how? You can't use money when you're dead and the estate didn't create the work, the author did. Why should the estate continue to collect for doing nothing? Hereditary wealth isn't something we should be promoting, especially in the US. It doesn't lend itself well to a meritocracy.
Sudo doesn't integrate with MAC. It's purely a DAC solution. With UAC you can launch a program as low integrity and if spawns a process that needs more privileges UAC will ask you for those priveleges. With sudo you have to be running with the highest priveleges necessary to run a program that spawns a process that requires elevated privileges. Sudo changes privileges based on users. UAC changes privileges based on integrity level. SELinux's main component is its MAC implementation so while Vista's security model isn't exactly equivalent, claiming that they are nothing alike is just not true. UAC is just the graphic interface to Vista's MAC. Sudo is an interface to the standard UNIX DAC model. I would say UAC has more in common with SELinux's security model than sudo. They may look like they the do something similar outwardly (privelege escalation) but the privelege escalation method is very different.
My point was that UAC is more than a "thin skin around privelege escalation". It is not as simple as something like sudo. You are not automatically given full priveleges when UAC is invoked. You are only given enough priveleges to execute a program within the necessary integrity level.
That's not quite true. UAC is tied into Vista's MIC (Mandatory Integrity Control) which is very much like a MAC (Mandatory Access Control) system. SELinux implements MAC. It's actually not as different as you make it out to be.
The point, in case you missed it, was that OSX has a tiny percentage of marketshare on the desktop and even smaller in the server room. It's just not a large target compared to Windows on the desktop or Linux in the server room. The amount of iPhone's and iPod's has nothing to do with this conversation. Mobile hacking in general is nowhere near as popular as desktop hacking precisely because the market is much more fragmented.
You're quibbling with the wrong person then. I haven't said anything like what you are describing. I don't believe OSX is inferior to Windows. I hate Windows and I would prefer OSX to Windows but that doesn't change the fact that they are behind when it comes to security technology. You seem to be making the false assumption that just because OSX is less affected by security vulnerabilities that is also more secure. That's pretty dangerous thinking especially considering OSX seems to get more popular every year. The last thing we need is another group of users who think they can throw caution to the wind just because they are not using Windows.
I think you're making a big mistake continuing with your assumption that OSX is a secure operating system just because it has been attacked less in the past. It's the same mistake some Linux users made a few years ago. Luckily some people understood that to be really secure the OS itself needed to be hardened. A buffer overflow is a buffer overflow and you're never going to eliminate them all unless you stop using languages like C altogether and that isn't going to happen anytime soon. Even if you do that's just one class of vulnerabilities. OSX needs a real RBAC system and more extensive memory relocation schemes to be taken seriously by any security professional as a secure operating system.
I agree that security is a process but it shouldn't be relegated to discovering bugs and patching them. You're never going to win that war because there will always be new vulnerabilities. You have to be prepared enough to stop unknown threats by limiting exposure through access controls and flat out stopping things like buffer overflows with address r
I never said switching to Apple would be pointless. I'm just pointing out that the lack of viruses and exploits for OSX does not mean it is secure. Apple users have this false sense of security because their platform isn't widely used or attacked. It has been show time and time again that the exploits exist and they are not difficult to implement because of the lack of security.
Like SkyNet?
I wouldn't know because I don't use Winodws. I do know that you are confusing relative safety with security though. OSX is relatively safer to use than Windows but is by no means more secure. Just because you haven't activated root access doesn't mean that no part of your system is running with full privleges. Overflow a vulnerable service and you have root access. OSX provides very little protection against software errors. Only in Leopard did they include limited ASLR and MAC. The protections are quite quaint compared to what is available on other systems.
You are aware that OSX isn't completely open source by any stretch of the imagination. It definitely is security through obscurity. Apple isn't making any attempts to obscure code but it's obscure enough for most script kiddies used to Windows and that is all they seem to be relying on. Why don't you actually look into what I said about OSX's lack of anti-hacking measures. Windows started introducing this stuff in XP SP2. Linux has had several different implementations for years. OSX introduced limited ASLR in Leopard. They are way behind in that respect. Now that people are letting all kinds of crap from the web run on their computers these types of protections are necessary and Apple certainly isn't leading the way with security technology. They seem to be limping along behind everyone else hoping no one has the urge to exploit something that has a tiny marketshare while they get their act together.
No it doesn't. He plainly states that since OSX isn't as much of a target it's not as vulnerable in that sense. It's really security through obscurity and that really isn't security at all. Just because you are generally safer using OSX doesn't mean it's more secure.
What agenda is that? If you're going to accuse me and others of having an agenda then you might as well spell it out because I'm not quite sure what the hell you are talking about. Apple is no more secure than Windows, and in fact is probably less secure. Windows and Linux distributions have progressed to the point where they include a lot of anti-hacking measures while Apple is far behind in supporting the same schemes. I know the Mac fanboys just can't take the fact that their beloved OS has poor security but the facts are the facts. OSX needs more anti-hacking measures because it doesn't matter how well coded Apple's stuff is (or isn't), a 3rd party app like Flash can easily open up the system without any extra protections from OSX itself. This is why we have ASLR, PaX, ACLs, SSP, PIE, DEP, Sandboxing, etc. OSX has the security of a 20 year old UNIX and while some things have been making headway (ASLR) it's nowhere near the sophistication of a Linux or Windows solution. Linux and OSX are less of a target on the desktop for exploits but the difference is Apple became complacent over the past few years and did not stay on top of security innovations that were being implemented elsewhere.