I don't see how more programmer neccessarily make for a more secure OS. Apple certainly can't afford to hire as many programmers as MS, but OSX is much safer than windows and at least as secure as the best version of Linux, and most likely more secure. As far as I know, there has never been a piece of malware out in the wild that has affected OSX users.
Mac OSX *does* allow automatic updates IF the user is an administrator. The update program shows what updates are available, together with a brief non-geeky explanation what the update is for and then politely asks the user if the update should now be installed. It also warns the user if the update requires re-booting the computer.
Since both Linux and OSX are based on a *NIX core, I don't see why updating could not be automated and friendly for Linux also.
Certainly there will never be as much malware for Linux IF it ever gets to be as popular as MS software. Linux CAN be made very secure against nasties on the net if the user is knowledgable. That is the problem however; in order to use and secure Linux, a user needs to MUCH more computer savy than the average "Joe Sixpack" running say a cheap Dell or other box with Windows.
Linux programmers need to follow Apple's OSX example and just turn everything off that most ordinary non-geeks will not need. All the wonderful geek stuff is still there, but the ordinary mortal does not have to even see it. The super-user can still get the computer to get up and dance to his/her tune!
As long as the Linux programmers/distributors have that geek mentality, Linux will NOT achieve a very large desktop usership and so will not be attractive to hackers/spammers out to make money. Therefore, those users that are computer literate enough to easily and productively use Linux will never have to worry too much about malware.
I mostly use Macs with OSX, but I also have an old OS9 machine that uses so called "old" software just fine to do certain things that need no modern fancy computer. If it aint broke, don't fix it or upgrade it.
If there are too many restrictions on new computers, then users just will make do with the unencumbered old stuff.
Most Laptops use only 20-40 watts of power and could be used as a simple file/mail server. If the screen can be turned off the power used will be quite a bit less yet. If more storage is needed than an older cheap laptop has internally, an external USB drive should not add too much extra power drain. Some Laptops can sleep using virtually no power at all until network activity wakes it.
I agree that a good OS should not be affected by *any* defective software to the extent that the whole computer goes down. That sort of behavior belongs to the ancient past of DOS and the old Mac OS systems. The old versions of windows (win95 and 98) are really only a fancy interface running on top of DOS, but the newer MS stuff was supposed to be more crsh resistant, but evidently is not much better.
All the MS systems, even today, at heart are still a single user system, while the *NIX boxes are designed from the get-go as multiuser machines. The main obstacle for MS coming out with a truly stable and secure OS is the problem of backward compatibility.
MS systems such as win2k or XP can be made quite stable and secure by a knowledgeable user, but the problem is that as soon as that is done, many, if not most programs will no longer run. When MS came out with the latest service pack for XP, many programs, even some of their own failed.
MS will have to re-educate all the programmers not to expect their programs to have nearly as much system writing access, as they have now. The registry is still a major source of failure for MS systems. Meanwhile, if you expect to still run your current software, expect the computer to be unstable and insecure.
My Apple G4 with OSX has NEVER crashed even once. I have had many programs, especially AOL and MS IE freeze up, but the force quit function has worked EVERY time to kill the offender. I have never had a forced reboot.
It is very rare that there is only ONE software program in existence that will do a given job. For most things computers can do there many pieces of software to choose from. On the odd chance that I have to do something with a computer that no one else has thought of and written a program for, then in that case I'd write that program I need and give it away for free to the world.
Having a subscription model for network related work, such as e-mail and browsing may come. For most other application, even privately networked ones, the dependence on a still rather fragile Internet infrastructure will not work for critical business applications. The Internet today is nowhere near as reliable as the old fashioned wired telephone which is not affected by DOS attacks and assorted malware running on millions of unprotected computers.
All this rental talk reminds me of the old mainframe days, when it went down, everybody just sat around doing absolutly nothing until it came back up. With a relatively independent PC on each desk, users can still do useful stuff, such as composing e-mails for later sending or working on a report with a word processor for example. Then, when the net or server finally works again, regular work can resume also.
...Windows without constant updates is worse than useless....
That is a major reason why we use Macs around here for everything that doesn't need some special proprietary Windows only program.
We have a 1992 Color Classic that still works quietly as a rather spohisticated phone answering machine and as a programmer for a bunch of X-10 remote controlled lights and other electrical items. The Mac is remotely controlled over the ethernet by other modern computers, one of which is a Win2k box.
I specifically check for this sort of restriction and just do not buy such software. If everybody did this, such crap would soon cease to be offered. For most software it is possible to find one that fulfills the function without such artificial restrictions. Also, there is usually some hacker who figured out a way to disable such retrictions if the software is popular or unreasonably expensive. Such activation restrictions have never stopped the wholsale "piracy" that is rampant in many other countries.
We have a lot of software on our computers, but not ONE that ever expires.
That is BS. If I buy anything in a store, including software, it is MINE, no matter what the entirely bogus and illegal, so called EULA says. A purchase of anything, including software, gives the purchaser ownership. If I buy say a radio, the manufacturer thereof cannot force me to listen to certain stations and not to others.
I wish that my FORMER cell phone co. had done that. They wanted to force me to buy a newer more expensive plan *and* a new phone. I politely called upon them to honor my contract with them which still had about a year to go, but they refused. Therefore I cancelled my account and went with another provider. However they are STILL hounding me to pay a $200+ early cancellation fee now, over a year later. I have very politely but firmly told them where to go and use caller ID to ignore the calls of their collection agency! I'm afraid that today there are an increasing number of companies out there that have no qualms alienating their customers. Witness the RIAA and their music customers for example.
So you've come to depend on ZBrush and then for some reason they go out of business or they get sold to someone who finds the program unprofitable and it no loger gets updated at best and perhaps at worst stops working altogether after a certain time. Also, since the program uses a special data format, all the work you have done with it is suddenly inaccessible. You buy a new computer because the old one went up in smoke or became obsolete and then you learn that you cannot install the program there because of some protection. I'd never touch such a program with a ten foot pole if my business depends on it.
I thought that renting out software is illegal. If it is not, then why isn't Blockbuster et. al. in the software renting business? They could buy X number of copies and rent them multiple times. Of course if the users copied the software these users would be breaking the law the same as when they copy a rented movie or music CD. Rented movies supposedly have a copy protection, but I have heard that has been hacked and programs that allow copying of most anything can be found on the Internet. Blockbuster and Co. of course could not be held liable for what the users do in the privacy of their houses and so they probably would not care either.
According to the ACLU reply, the ISP doesn't keep the data that the government is looking for. Do ISP's have a legal obligation to keep records as to who does what and when on their systems? If not, it seems that ISP's could save themselves a lot of trouble by deliberately NOT logging such data.
Posession laws in general are pointless. If someone has a machine gun or grenade or whatever in their collection... so what? So what if my neighbors shotgun is shorter by a quarter inch of some arbitrary length? If they start threatening or using those things to enforce their will upon others, then the laws should deal with it. Just having something is not the problem, but using it against a fellow human is.
If you're into games, get an X-Box or Playstation -- they're MUCH cheaper. If you want a computer for real work, get a Mac and you don't have to spend a lot of time maintaing it with anti-virus software and constant downloading of patches.
It has nothing to do with market share. Its just that most hackers out there are too dumb to write anything thay could infect a Mac -- even if they got a million dollars to do it.
Any Windows admin should be able to learn everything that needs to be done to set up Macs in a few days since the Macs are secure out of the box. Windows is much harder to deal with than a Mac, so any admin who is worth his/her pay should have no problems whatsoever.
Anyone who buys a computer on a purchase price only basis should be summarily fired. A buyer should look at the total cost of ownersip over the life of the machine. One worm or virus on a business coputer can cause a productivity loss several times the difference in cost. There are 70,000+ pieces of malware out in the wilds of the Internet, but there a NONE that will affect a Mac system if the user is not running as an administrator.
A caller ID and and answering machine solves that problem. Just don't answer the phone directly anymore if the number is not listed or from someone you don't know. If they leave a message its easy to ignore them.
If my caller ID shows nothing or a number not on my "answer now list" I always let the answering machine take the call. If the caller starts to leave a message I can hear that and answer the phone if I want to. Therefore, a spoofer collection agency, telemarketer, or other spoofer would have to know a name and number on my "answer now list" in order for me to answer the phone directly. If the caller leaves no message, then that call was not important enough to answer anyway. If they do leave a message I can choose to return the call or not.
It seems that until MS can change these practices by program writers there is no real hope of them *ever* coming up with a secure system.
However, meanwhile, it seems that MS or someone could write a utility that would deny all permissions to any and all system related things and then make it easy for the user to give permissions to selected programs only -- one at a time as they were run the first time.
It means that MS users will have to bite the bullet and do a little more work initially and maybe replace some of their software. If such a system were in place, any malware that a user may download could not run surreptitiously, but would have to ask for permissions first. A user could be warned not to approve if he/she is not sure of the source of the file that is asking for permission.
Security and convenience, even in the real world, are at odds and this extra work, it seems to me, most users would not mind if it prevents their systems from being messed up against their will or knowledge. If they DO give permissions to questionable code, then they deserve to have their systems hosed.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see how more programmer neccessarily make for a more secure OS. Apple certainly can't afford to hire as many programmers as MS, but OSX is much safer than windows and at least as secure as the best version of Linux, and most likely more secure. As far as I know, there has never been a piece of malware out in the wild that has affected OSX users.
Actually, Apple has been doing quite well selling laptops lately, especially to college students and many iPod users as well.
Why should your computer trust you? It doesn't even know who you are, so how can it trust someone it does't even know?
Mac OSX *does* allow automatic updates IF the user is an administrator. The update program shows what updates are available, together with a brief non-geeky explanation what the update is for and then politely asks the user if the update should now be installed. It also warns the user if the update requires re-booting the computer.
Since both Linux and OSX are based on a *NIX core, I don't see why updating could not be automated and friendly for Linux also.
Certainly there will never be as much malware for Linux IF it ever gets to be as popular as MS software. Linux CAN be made very secure against nasties on the net if the user is knowledgable. That is the problem however; in order to use and secure Linux, a user needs to MUCH more computer savy than the average "Joe Sixpack" running say a cheap Dell or other box with Windows.
Linux programmers need to follow Apple's OSX example and just turn everything off that most ordinary non-geeks will not need. All the wonderful geek stuff is still there, but the ordinary mortal does not have to even see it. The super-user can still get the computer to get up and dance to his/her tune!
As long as the Linux programmers/distributors have that geek mentality, Linux will NOT achieve a very large desktop usership and so will not be attractive to hackers/spammers out to make money. Therefore, those users that are computer literate enough to easily and productively use Linux will never have to worry too much about malware.
I mostly use Macs with OSX, but I also have an old OS9 machine that uses so called "old" software just fine to do certain things that need no modern fancy computer. If it aint broke, don't fix it or upgrade it.
If there are too many restrictions on new computers, then users just will make do with the unencumbered old stuff.
Most Laptops use only 20-40 watts of power and could be used as a simple file/mail server. If the screen can be turned off the power used will be quite a bit less yet. If more storage is needed than an older cheap laptop has internally, an external USB drive should not add too much extra power drain. Some Laptops can sleep using virtually no power at all until network activity wakes it.
I agree that a good OS should not be affected by *any* defective software to the extent that the whole computer goes down. That sort of behavior belongs to the ancient past of DOS and the old Mac OS systems. The old versions of windows (win95 and 98) are really only a fancy interface running on top of DOS, but the newer MS stuff was supposed to be more crsh resistant, but evidently is not much better.
All the MS systems, even today, at heart are still a single user system, while the *NIX boxes are designed from the get-go as multiuser machines. The main obstacle for MS coming out with a truly stable and secure OS is the problem of backward compatibility.
MS systems such as win2k or XP can be made quite stable and secure by a knowledgeable user, but the problem is that as soon as that is done, many, if not most programs will no longer run. When MS came out with the latest service pack for XP, many programs, even some of their own failed.
MS will have to re-educate all the programmers not to expect their programs to have nearly as much system writing access, as they have now. The registry is still a major source of failure for MS systems. Meanwhile, if you expect to still run your current software, expect the computer to be unstable and insecure.
My Apple G4 with OSX has NEVER crashed even once. I have had many programs, especially AOL and MS IE freeze up, but the force quit function has worked EVERY time to kill the offender. I have never had a forced reboot.
...food on the table....
It is very rare that there is only ONE software program in existence that will do a given job. For most things computers can do there many pieces of software to choose from. On the odd chance that I have to do something with a computer that no one else has thought of and written a program for, then in that case I'd write that program I need and give it away for free to the world.
Having a subscription model for network related work, such as e-mail and browsing may come. For most other application, even privately networked ones, the dependence on a still rather fragile Internet infrastructure will not work for critical business applications. The Internet today is nowhere near as reliable as the old fashioned wired telephone which is not affected by DOS attacks and assorted malware running on millions of unprotected computers.
All this rental talk reminds me of the old mainframe days, when it went down, everybody just sat around doing absolutly nothing until it came back up. With a relatively independent PC on each desk, users can still do useful stuff, such as composing e-mails for later sending or working on a report with a word processor for example. Then, when the net or server finally works again, regular work can resume also.
...Windows without constant updates is worse than useless....
That is a major reason why we use Macs around here for everything that doesn't need some special proprietary Windows only program.
We have a 1992 Color Classic that still works quietly as a rather spohisticated phone answering machine and as a programmer for a bunch of X-10 remote controlled lights and other electrical items. The Mac is remotely controlled over the ethernet by other modern computers, one of which is a Win2k box.
I specifically check for this sort of restriction and just do not buy such software. If everybody did this, such crap would soon cease to be offered. For most software it is possible to find one that fulfills the function without such artificial restrictions. Also, there is usually some hacker who figured out a way to disable such retrictions if the software is popular or unreasonably expensive. Such activation restrictions have never stopped the wholsale "piracy" that is rampant in many other countries.
We have a lot of software on our computers, but not ONE that ever expires.
...never really owned any software anyway...
That is BS. If I buy anything in a store, including software, it is MINE, no matter what the entirely bogus and illegal, so called EULA says. A purchase of anything, including software, gives the purchaser ownership. If I buy say a radio, the manufacturer thereof cannot force me to listen to certain stations and not to others.
I wish that my FORMER cell phone co. had done that. They wanted to force me to buy a newer more expensive plan *and* a new phone. I politely called upon them to honor my contract with them which still had about a year to go, but they refused. Therefore I cancelled my account and went with another provider. However they are STILL hounding me to pay a $200+ early cancellation fee now, over a year later. I have very politely but firmly told them where to go and use caller ID to ignore the calls of their collection agency! I'm afraid that today there are an increasing number of companies out there that have no qualms alienating their customers. Witness the RIAA and their music customers for example.
So you've come to depend on ZBrush and then for some reason they go out of business or they get sold to someone who finds the program unprofitable and it no loger gets updated at best and perhaps at worst stops working altogether after a certain time. Also, since the program uses a special data format, all the work you have done with it is suddenly inaccessible. You buy a new computer because the old one went up in smoke or became obsolete and then you learn that you cannot install the program there because of some protection. I'd never touch such a program with a ten foot pole if my business depends on it.
I thought that renting out software is illegal. If it is not, then why isn't Blockbuster et. al. in the software renting business? They could buy X number of copies and rent them multiple times. Of course if the users copied the software these users would be breaking the law the same as when they copy a rented movie or music CD. Rented movies supposedly have a copy protection, but I have heard that has been hacked and programs that allow copying of most anything can be found on the Internet. Blockbuster and Co. of course could not be held liable for what the users do in the privacy of their houses and so they probably would not care either.
According to the ACLU reply, the ISP doesn't keep the data that the government is looking for. Do ISP's have a legal obligation to keep records as to who does what and when on their systems? If not, it seems that ISP's could save themselves a lot of trouble by deliberately NOT logging such data.
Posession laws in general are pointless. If someone has a machine gun or grenade or whatever in their collection ... so what? So what if my neighbors shotgun is shorter by a quarter inch of some arbitrary length? If they start threatening or using those things to enforce their will upon others, then the laws should deal with it. Just having something is not the problem, but using it against a fellow human is.
If you're into games, get an X-Box or Playstation -- they're MUCH cheaper. If you want a computer for real work, get a Mac and you don't have to spend a lot of time maintaing it with anti-virus software and constant downloading of patches.
It has nothing to do with market share. Its just that most hackers out there are too dumb to write anything thay could infect a Mac -- even if they got a million dollars to do it.
Any Windows admin should be able to learn everything that needs to be done to set up Macs in a few days since the Macs are secure out of the box. Windows is much harder to deal with than a Mac, so any admin who is worth his/her pay should have no problems whatsoever.
Anyone who buys a computer on a purchase price only basis should be summarily fired. A buyer should look at the total cost of ownersip over the life of the machine. One worm or virus on a business coputer can cause a productivity loss several times the difference in cost. There are 70,000+ pieces of malware out in the wilds of the Internet, but there a NONE that will affect a Mac system if the user is not running as an administrator.
A caller ID and and answering machine solves that problem.
Just don't answer the phone directly anymore if the number is not listed or from someone you don't know. If they leave a message its easy to ignore them.
If my caller ID shows nothing or a number not on my "answer now list" I always let the answering machine take the call. If the caller starts to leave a message I can hear that and answer the phone if I want to. Therefore, a spoofer collection agency, telemarketer, or other spoofer would have to know a name and number on my "answer now list" in order for me to answer the phone directly. If the caller leaves no message, then that call was not important enough to answer anyway. If they do leave a message I can choose to return the call or not.
Thanks for the insight...
It seems that until MS can change these practices by program writers there is no real hope of them *ever* coming up with a secure system.
However, meanwhile, it seems that MS or someone could write a utility that would deny all permissions to any and all system related things and then make it easy for the user to give permissions to selected programs only -- one at a time as they were run the first time.
It means that MS users will have to bite the bullet and do a little more work initially and maybe replace some of their software. If such a system were in place, any malware that a user may download could not run surreptitiously, but would have to ask for permissions first. A user could be warned not to approve if he/she is not sure of the source of the file that is asking for permission.
Security and convenience, even in the real world, are at odds and this extra work, it seems to me, most users would not mind if it prevents their systems from being messed up against their will or knowledge. If they DO give permissions to questionable code, then they deserve to have their systems hosed.