40 Mac viruses compared to how many PC viruses? 71989 and counting according to Symantec. And the most mentioned causes of problems in security on the Mac Platform? Microsoft products. I rest my case.
That's beside the point of the article. The article wasn't blasting security on the Mac, it was pointing out that Mac's are susceptible to problems to. Doesn't the vulnerability of software running on a Mac constitute a security problem on the Mac? If I can get in does it matter if it's through the OS directly or through an application?
The article was suggesting that Mac users need to be every bit as cautious as the "rest of us" on our Windows boxes. It was railing against the same type of thinking that causes parents to decide not to get their children vaccinated against things like measles because you never hear of measles cases anymore. Of course not! It's because we've been vaccinated! So Mac users: go get your booster shots.
That link doesn't even mention OS X, and is dated 2000.
Actually the article is quite recent: "Last Updated: Monday, 16 January 2006, 09:32 GMT" and does, indeed, discuss OS-X: "Mac OS is built on top of the Unix operating system." If I remember correctly, the first version of Mac OS to be built on a Unix platform was OS-X. But, not being a Mac zealot ^H^H^H user, I may be mistaken.
It makes sense--after all, Microsoft seems to like the biggest, most bloated, least stable versions of software it can find--especailly if they have nice GUI's. Seems McAfee fits the bill on that one.
Oh yeah, and now Microsoft can buy them for pennies on the dollar.
If you've followed how content providers (like Disney, HBO, etc.) negotiate with cable companies (like Comcast, DirecTV, etc.), you can see how a-la-carte pricing is going to cause serious changes--and probably not for the best--to your monthly bill.
For instance, Disney owns ESPN (which has 4 full time channels on DirecTV by my last count) and all those Disney channels like NOG, Disney1, Disney2, Toon Disney, etc. When a large content provider renegotiates with the cable company, that gives them leverage to push their less popular channels based on their more popular ones.
These contracts are usually written in such a way that the content provider is paid a base monthly sum for each channel of content, and then is paid further based on the number of subscribers for each channel. That means that ALL "basic" cable content providers want "all" their channels in the basic package, because all cable viewers are considered subscribers to those channels.
For instance: Let's say that the fictional BigContent copany has a couple of very popular channels, like SportsWorld and AllStandup. And they've got a really unpopular one called StampCollecting. Their arguement goes something like this: SportsWorld should be considered a premium channel. BigContent research has determined that SportsWorld is the single biggest reason that people decide to get your cable system. Since you won't make SportsWorld a "pay channel" (like HBO), we demand that you make StampCollecting one of your basic channels as well!
So that gives BigContent a ton of guaranteed revenue for a the StampCollecting channel that costs them virtually nothing to produce, which nobody will watch, but it keeps the "price" of SportsWorld down to a resonable level.
If I can start to choose SportsWorld on an a-la-carte basis, that completely changes the negotiation. Now when BigContent negotiates it's next contract with Comcast or DirecTV, they're going to start demanding more per month for SportsWorld, to the point where Comcast will have to pass that pricing on to the end user, making SportsWorld prohibitively expensive, both for a-la-carte viewers and for package viewers. It also means that BigContent has less interest in producing their StampCollecting channel, because it wont' be much of a revenue stream for them anymore.
So yes, while I'd be happy not paying for CMT and FOX news, I would hate to have to start paying "market price" for ESPN...and I just don't see how this will work without certain channels (ESPN, MTV, Comedy Central, etc.) becoming prohibitively expensive.
Slashdot Mirror
That's beside the point of the article. The article wasn't blasting security on the Mac, it was pointing out that Mac's are susceptible to problems to. Doesn't the vulnerability of software running on a Mac constitute a security problem on the Mac? If I can get in does it matter if it's through the OS directly or through an application?
The article was suggesting that Mac users need to be every bit as cautious as the "rest of us" on our Windows boxes. It was railing against the same type of thinking that causes parents to decide not to get their children vaccinated against things like measles because you never hear of measles cases anymore. Of course not! It's because we've been vaccinated! So Mac users: go get your booster shots.
Actually the article is quite recent: "Last Updated: Monday, 16 January 2006, 09:32 GMT" and does, indeed, discuss OS-X: "Mac OS is built on top of the Unix operating system." If I remember correctly, the first version of Mac OS to be built on a Unix platform was OS-X. But, not being a Mac zealot ^H^H^H user, I may be mistaken.
It makes sense--after all, Microsoft seems to like the biggest, most bloated, least stable versions of software it can find--especailly if they have nice GUI's. Seems McAfee fits the bill on that one. Oh yeah, and now Microsoft can buy them for pennies on the dollar.
If you've followed how content providers (like Disney, HBO, etc.) negotiate with cable companies (like Comcast, DirecTV, etc.), you can see how a-la-carte pricing is going to cause serious changes--and probably not for the best--to your monthly bill.
For instance, Disney owns ESPN (which has 4 full time channels on DirecTV by my last count) and all those Disney channels like NOG, Disney1, Disney2, Toon Disney, etc. When a large content provider renegotiates with the cable company, that gives them leverage to push their less popular channels based on their more popular ones.
These contracts are usually written in such a way that the content provider is paid a base monthly sum for each channel of content, and then is paid further based on the number of subscribers for each channel. That means that ALL "basic" cable content providers want "all" their channels in the basic package, because all cable viewers are considered subscribers to those channels.
For instance: Let's say that the fictional BigContent copany has a couple of very popular channels, like SportsWorld and AllStandup. And they've got a really unpopular one called StampCollecting. Their arguement goes something like this: SportsWorld should be considered a premium channel. BigContent research has determined that SportsWorld is the single biggest reason that people decide to get your cable system. Since you won't make SportsWorld a "pay channel" (like HBO), we demand that you make StampCollecting one of your basic channels as well!
So that gives BigContent a ton of guaranteed revenue for a the StampCollecting channel that costs them virtually nothing to produce, which nobody will watch, but it keeps the "price" of SportsWorld down to a resonable level.
If I can start to choose SportsWorld on an a-la-carte basis, that completely changes the negotiation. Now when BigContent negotiates it's next contract with Comcast or DirecTV, they're going to start demanding more per month for SportsWorld, to the point where Comcast will have to pass that pricing on to the end user, making SportsWorld prohibitively expensive, both for a-la-carte viewers and for package viewers. It also means that BigContent has less interest in producing their StampCollecting channel, because it wont' be much of a revenue stream for them anymore.
So yes, while I'd be happy not paying for CMT and FOX news, I would hate to have to start paying "market price" for ESPN...and I just don't see how this will work without certain channels (ESPN, MTV, Comedy Central, etc.) becoming prohibitively expensive.