Sorry, but I need to answer this slightly in reverse:)
Well of course, but at no point was I ever talking about trojans, I was talking about viruses, right?
Trojans are categorized as viruses under anti-virus software (adware, spyware isn't though under the same software). Looking at the virus statistics of F-secure, I immediately see that it's e-mail Trojans/worm viruses at the top mostly...
And where I live, over 70% of the population lives over the poverty line and are making more than ten times that much. So yes, spending a few hundred bucks for MANY people is nothing, unless your demographic are the very poor or those with next to no disposable income. That's a stretch.
I also recall reading a few articles (sorry, I don't have the links on me) that did claim many viruses or malware in general were written in countries like Russia. Which, does not have such high living standards. Now, since I live in a country that at the moment seems to have alot of similar economic issues (not as bad though). It would be plausible to think my 'demographic' would be closer to so called virus/malware writers. So, perhaps my reasoning does make sense in this particular case?
I'm guessing you didn't know that there are plenty of directions out there that tell you how to run OS X on x86 machines, then. It's already out there.
I was doubting the fact it could run on a 486 (which was stated earlier, not x86) with the limited amount of RAM the 486 motherboards could support and the lack of huge amount of instructions used in MacOSX's x86 version on that specific processor.
What are you basing this off of?
Expirence with software I've been cleaning up from Windows systems over the years (usually for a acquaitence -- nobody in my family or work as this non-sense under windows).
Yeah, willing. OS X is a great OS, and if someone is determined enough to spend a lot of time on cracking an OS, spending a few hundred bucks is nothing. Come on.
Step out of the reality distortion field please. Spending a few hundred bucks is not nothing, many people are barely earning 290USD monthly where I live (having to live off that money too).
Interesting, all of the more interesting viruses I've seen are compiled at a low level language where you can actually manage memory.
The more interesting viruses don't seem to be in the wild as much as the badly written VB6 e-mail Trojans. I haven't seen any new worms with mutation engines, boot sector 'hacks' in years. Adware/spyware combos seem to-do all the interesting things these days with root-kits, binary infections etc.
No, it's not. A trojan is completely dependant on tricking a user into executing a specific, separate application.
By that logic, the kissing disease is not a virus.
A trojan is completely dependant on tricking a user into executing a specific, separate application. Whereas viruses require little to no user interaction - such as the Outlook virus that infected you if you merely previewed the message.
Previewing a what seems a ordinary e-mail that in turn infects you, can be considered to be a Trojan -- You should read up on the original story.
Sure - old ones. Twenty years ago just about every sort of exploit was lumped under the "virus" label. Most if not all of the early Mac "viruses" are what we now consider to be trojans, though this goes for Windows as well.
Seeing how Trojans are still documented under virus databases of anti-virus scanners rather than it's own category (like spyware/scumware/adware is). I'm just not going to believe you.
No, actually, they don't. Leap.A is a trojan, not a virus, and any system that allows a user control over a system is open to trojans, or social engeneering.
A Trojan is a type of virus. Heck, just look at the definitions of the word on google if you don't believe me. There are also many biological viruses that require what you would call 'social engineering' that can be applied to the cellular level.
Besides that, I was discussing 'Malware', not viruses in particular (Malware grouping viruses, rootkits, spyware, bad adware).
ash-fox@Tapestry:~$ sudo apt-get install openclipart Password: Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree... Done The following extra packages will be installed: openclipart-openoffice.org openclipart-png openclipart-svg Suggested packages:
gimp-svg inkscape sketch Recommended packages:
librsvg2-bin The following NEW packages will be installed:
openclipart openclipart-openoffice.org openclipart-png openclipart-svg 0 upgraded, 4 newly installed, 0 to remove and 6 not upgraded. Need to get 39.8MB/193MB of archives. After unpacking 371MB of additional disk space will be used. Do you want to continue [Y/n]? y Get:1 http://pl.archive.ubuntu.com/ dapper/universe openclipart-svg 0.18+dfsg-4 [39.8MB] Get:2 http://pl.archive.ubuntu.com/ dapper/universe openclipart 0.18+dfsg-4 [3836B] Fetched 39.8MB in 5m7s (130kB/s) Selecting previously deselected package openclipart-svg. (Reading database... 99998 files and directories currently installed.) Unpacking openclipart-svg (from.../openclipart-svg_0.18+dfsg-4_all.deb)... Selecting previously deselected package openclipart-png. Unpacking openclipart-png (from.../openclipart-png_0.18+dfsg-4_all.deb)... Selecting previously deselected package openclipart-openoffice.org. Unpacking openclipart-openoffice.org (from.../openclipart-openoffice.org_0.18+dfsg-4_all.deb )... Selecting previously deselected package openclipart. Unpacking openclipart (from.../openclipart_0.18+dfsg-4_all.deb)... Setting up openclipart-svg (0.18+dfsg-4)... Setting up openclipart-png (0.18+dfsg-4)... Setting up openclipart-openoffice.org (0.18+dfsg-4)... Setting up openclipart (0.18+dfsg-4)... ash-fox@Tapestry:~$
So you think a CRACKER couldn't figure out how to run OS X on a 486?
From a technical perspective, highly unlikely.
Do you also think there are no crackers who use OS X?
The ones that write malware and such, nope don't think they do.
Or who aren't willing to buy a used Mac Mini for a few hundred bucks?
Willing?
No, this is nothing even resembling a roadblock.
What about the fact that many people see Mac systems as a niche market? Could this not be a road block? Could the fact that VB6 is being taught in schools a lot more rather than others?
I have no idea what would make you think that hacking OS X would require learning a new language.
Seeing how much malware I've analyzed over the past six years tends to contain a lot of VB code... I do.
What's keeping them from writing it in C, or C++, or even a webpage?
Lack of interest (although many do actually use web-browser exploits)?
We haven't even see the lowest of low exploits (exploits on the user). I really think it's just a lack of interest in the Mac (and no, I don't think a advert that says product 'x' is better than 'y', be it or not be true will cause vandals to vandalize 'x').
Between Mac OS X's reported userbase of 19 million (Steve Jobs, WWDC 2006) and the Mac Fanboy's smugness about security, rest assured virus and spyware writers are already hard at work to infect the Mac - there were unsuccessful attempts early this year.
You're telling me trick e-mail viruses, that have compressed, password encrypted archives with.pkg installers inside them that contain the self replicating e-mail spamming non-sense aren't possible under MacOSX? Because I see that a lot more under Windows systems -- moreso than worms.
If you were a cracker and you saw these pompous Apple commercials, saw the Apple trolls that say that Apple can do no wrong, and saw all this news coverage about POTENTIAL viruses for OS X that turn out to be garbage, would this not be an obviously huge target to shoot for if you were going for notoriety?
But... They'd need a expensive 'entry-level' computer for the platform (trying to run MacOSX on unsupported graphic hardware is painful), and learn a new programming language, a new OS... Uh, no.
Whoa, whoa, wait, hold the fucking phone, full stop: you normally do a fresh Ubuntu install every six months? Holy shit, I thought that stuff was only for Windows. I can't imagine reinstalling Linux ever, at least since I switched to Debian, much less every six months. Is this what Gentoo and Ubuntu have done to Linux? Turned them into Windows clones?
How do you do that on Windows or a Mac? Double-click. Wait. Configure a GUI. Sit back. Enjoy. Sure, you pay for the privilege, but the software actually works when the installer says it's finished.
Strange how I can do this on a few mainstream Linux distros too.
Now and then I install one or the other in a VM in my XP box, set to the same resolution as XP itself, and watch the state of the default menus, menu items distance, drop-downs, font sizes etc. For some reason I can't grasp, they're always bigger and more wastefull than what Microsoft made with XP.
I've never seen anyone stick with the defaults in Gnome or KDE. If the person using the computer is computer illiterate, I imagine the big menus and such are generally good.
Look, I have a few pentium 2/3 laptops here with barely any RAM. I use them as thin x11 clients (under a compressed SSH tunnel over a wi-fi network) to a Athlon 64 server running a distro of Linux.
They're far more responsive than my Pentium 4 laptop (HP XE4400) which runs linux on it's own. They are also far more responsive than running windows on them too, faster than even running just the remote desktop cient.
That's why Windows is so silky smooth when it comes to moving and resizing windows and overall graphical responsiveness - no userspace graphical process can compare to the priority granted to a kernel process.
That would make sense, but the UI more responsive for me under KDE+Linux than it is under Windows XP with all the effects turned off (HP XE4400 - 1.8ghz pentium 4, 1024MB ram, ATi mobility LY).
However until Linux can provide the ability to run games straight from the distro download instead of paying x$ a month for cedega which still only works part of the time...
Wine has worked and played more games for me than Cedega ever has. You might want to checkout the application database for information on games you like to play.
but try to install a wireless card or a scanner and then see if it's ready.
All of my wireless cards work (I bought them originally for windows, even didn't work very well under windows and didn't work immediately 'out of the box'). My old LPT scanner works with Linux (required configuration), so does a USB one I lent from someone (old one is just really slow). My wacom tablet works. All my bluetooth dongles I've had in the past worked on Linux.
Note: I didn't have to install any drivers, the devices just started working when I plugged them in immidately, well, except for the LPT scanner (but LPT devices don't really have automatic discovery protocols and such, not even windows will help you with that).
Note 2: I've never looked if the specific hardware works on Linux or not, because quite simply where I live, you get what you see or wait months on end for orders.
Linux has a long way to go. It is a good OS but there's still the attitude of "you suck because you won't compile your own kernel" attitude.
I disagree. I rarely see this attitude at all on Linux support channels (usually the ones who do are trolls) or mailing lists.
I would regularly read forums and see people attacked from far and wide.
I don't really use forums, I think you maybe better off using mailing lists or IRC instead for help if you're getting that.
The software just isn't there.
I have to say Linux lacks movie editing software (but there are loads and loads of libraries that could be used in such applications for some reason availible). But software for making graphics? I use Krita and Sodipodi. Software for making music? I use Rosegarden, noteedit, freewheeling and cheese tracker. Software for internet? Well... We already have Firefox and Thunderbird, of course there are plenty of others. Don't think I need to get into this. Software for the office? Well, there's openoffice.org, which seems to be able to run any VB macros being thrown at it. Instant messaging? Gaim, Kopete, centericq etc.
Some is, but there's a lot that isn't up to speed.
Perhaps not, I couldn't really tell to be honest, but I know for music editing, graphic creation. Linux is certainly enough for me.
Not only that many of those same free (as in beer) are available under Windows as well.
Unfortunately my favorite software like noteedit, krita etc. isn't. While there are ports of other software, but they seem to be lacking features. It makes me sad.
Gaming is still horrific even with the Transmedia product.
I have some bookmarks in Mozilla format if you're interested in gaming under Linux. But I have to agree that often ported games to Linux are horrific because people don't finish the job properly.
Online updating with yast, apt-get, and such is still too hit and miss--the repository manager decides what to put there and when so you can be left holding the bag if your distro and the repository doesn't contain the correct version.
If you want the latest and greatest software out there on your distro. You're better off using a distro that focuses on such things. Or, perhaps using 'back ports' repositories.
I loved some of the software that is Linux only and I appreciate the efforts but to mislead so many about how good it is on the desktop. Combined with installation of end-user programs, the lack of refinement in much of the software, the problems with updates over the web, the dependency issues that still persist to this day, as well as the legal issues surrounding issues like DVD decoding, etc., I can't really see them writing articles that provide blanket statements such as Linux is ready for the desktop.
I used to pretty much have a similar opinion on Linux too, before I discovered I could access other repositories for the system, like the penguin liberation front, which had provided things like all the windows 32bit codecs that mplayer/xine could play, windows fonts, DVD decryption routines and so on.
Better end-user package installation that doesn't rely on the web to get dependencies resolved and when the support is there for those who just want to use linux instead of compliling and modifying every little aspect to their liking are treated with respect then linux will be ready for the desktop.
I don't think I've had a dependency issue in maybe two years? The last time I had one was when I forcefully installed a package from another distro and then made symlinks to the appropriate libraries. But I don't really expect a newbie to-do this, but I would help them do it if they needed to for something.
Almost all drivers were autodetected or automatically downloaded from the internet after the first boot.
For the remaining drivers you can use regular XP drivers.
Looking over the drivers, some of them do not contain embedded manifests. Some of the drivers did not contain a Microsoft signature obtained through the WHQL or DRS programmes. The ATi drivers failed Microsoft's malware definition (section 1.11 of Microsoft Windows Vista logo Specification 1.0). Dell's own drivers did not install to the appropriate folders, thus entirely failed the logo specification.
I'm sorry, I don't think this is a fair comparison, seeing that most of these drivers I found from your information, did not even reach Microsoft's Windows Vista logo specifications. A lot of them were copied from drafts written for Windows XP's recommendations.
It's like trying to run MacOSX on Athlon64, and then complaining it runs hot (usually due to the driver issues, causing it to fall back on more primitive methods).
Slashdot Mirror
Trojans are categorized as viruses under anti-virus software (adware, spyware isn't though under the same software). Looking at the virus statistics of F-secure, I immediately see that it's e-mail Trojans/worm viruses at the top mostly...
I also recall reading a few articles (sorry, I don't have the links on me) that did claim many viruses or malware in general were written in countries like Russia. Which, does not have such high living standards. Now, since I live in a country that at the moment seems to have alot of similar economic issues (not as bad though). It would be plausible to think my 'demographic' would be closer to so called virus/malware writers. So, perhaps my reasoning does make sense in this particular case?
Besides that, I was discussing 'Malware', not viruses in particular (Malware grouping viruses, rootkits, spyware, bad adware).
I'm sorry, seems I was wrong, there are people starting making malware for MacOSX.
I guess MacOSX has become a more interesting target now.
We haven't even see the lowest of low exploits (exploits on the user). I really think it's just a lack of interest in the Mac (and no, I don't think a advert that says product 'x' is better than 'y', be it or not be true will cause vandals to vandalize 'x').
Why not just setup a socks5 proxy and have people use that for bittorent?
As for the legality, is it your job to police people on what's legal or not? I mean, there are also legitimate uses for bittorent.
They're far more responsive than my Pentium 4 laptop (HP XE4400) which runs linux on it's own. They are also far more responsive than running windows on them too, faster than even running just the remote desktop cient.
I don't think X is the particular problem.
I have used Fink and created my own repositories to manage Macs. Note that there is a lot of manual labour involved.
Note: I didn't have to install any drivers, the devices just started working when I plugged them in immidately, well, except for the LPT scanner (but LPT devices don't really have automatic discovery protocols and such, not even windows will help you with that).
Note 2: I've never looked if the specific hardware works on Linux or not, because quite simply where I live, you get what you see or wait months on end for orders.
But software for making graphics? I use Krita and Sodipodi.
Software for making music? I use Rosegarden, noteedit, freewheeling and cheese tracker.
Software for internet? Well... We already have Firefox and Thunderbird, of course there are plenty of others. Don't think I need to get into this.
Software for the office? Well, there's openoffice.org, which seems to be able to run any VB macros being thrown at it.
Instant messaging? Gaim, Kopete, centericq etc.
Perhaps not, I couldn't really tell to be honest, but I know for music editing, graphic creation. Linux is certainly enough for me.Unfortunately my favorite software like noteedit, krita etc. isn't. While there are ports of other software, but they seem to be lacking features. It makes me sad.
I have some bookmarks in Mozilla format if you're interested in gaming under Linux. But I have to agree that often ported games to Linux are horrific because people don't finish the job properly.
If you want the latest and greatest software out there on your distro. You're better off using a distro that focuses on such things. Or, perhaps using 'back ports' repositories.
I used to pretty much have a similar opinion on Linux too, before I discovered I could access other repositories for the system, like the penguin liberation front, which had provided things like all the windows 32bit codecs that mplayer/xine could play, windows fonts, DVD decryption routines and so on.
I don't think I've had a dependency issue in maybe two years? The last time I had one was when I forcefully installed a package from another distro and then made symlinks to the appropriate libraries. But I don't really expect a newbie to-do this, but I would help them do it if they needed to for something.
I'm sorry, I don't think this is a fair comparison, seeing that most of these drivers I found from your information, did not even reach Microsoft's Windows Vista logo specifications. A lot of them were copied from drafts written for Windows XP's recommendations.
It's like trying to run MacOSX on Athlon64, and then complaining it runs hot (usually due to the driver issues, causing it to fall back on more primitive methods).