backtop

Print 112 comment(s) - last by TomZ.. on Jul 18 at 9:59 PM
But one or more may arrive in the next five months Symantec says

According to a blog on Symantec's own website, the company says that as of right now, there are no virus threats that exist for Apple's UNIX-based OS X operating system. Starting with 10.4.7, OS X is as secure as it gets according to Todd Woodward of Symantec. Woodward goes on to say that "long before the digital ink dried on those simplistic and sensational headlines our Security Response team had determined that OSX.Leap.A was a worm, and not a file-infecting virus."

There has been much debate about the security between Microsoft's Windows XP and Apple's OS X. Apple itself has been touting OS X's security since its inception, and one of its recent TV commercials even depicts the PC side as having hundreds of thousands of viruses while Macs don't have any. From the blog:

As I tell my internal and external customers alike, just because there are no file-infecting viruses that can affect Mac OS X now, that doesn't mean there won't be a really nasty one released in the next five minutes. The likelihood of that happening is comparatively low and could be debated ad nauseam, but as Benjamin Franklin said: “A little neglect may breed great mischief: for want of a nail the shoe was lost; for want of a shoe the horse was lost; and for want of a horse the rider was lost.”

Woodward says that there was a threat released called OSX.Leap.A several months ago, but Symantec quickly discovered that it was not a "file-affecting" virus, and was merely a worm. Symantec claims that worms do not belong in the "virus" category. Symantec deemed OSX.Leap.A to be a minor security threat and since OS X's 10.4.7 update, the worm no longer works.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Let's State The Obvious
By Ulfhednar on 7/14/2006 7:17:58 AM , Rating: 2
When you only have 5% of the market share compared to the 90% your main competitor holds, who is going to give a toss about your OS?




RE: Let's State The Obvious
By Orpheus333 on 7/14/2006 7:27:25 AM , Rating: 3
Its not that- hackers and virus coders take pitty on OS-X users because they've already got it bad enough using a mac.

*ZING*


RE: Let's State The Obvious
By Ulfhednar on 7/14/2006 7:31:25 AM , Rating: 1
Hahahaha! Really though, I hope that Apple prospers and gains more market share, then us Windows and Linux users can mock them to the end of the world and back for their arrogance.


RE: Let's State The Obvious
By Ulfhednar on 7/14/2006 7:32:14 AM , Rating: 2
Stupid reply button: I meant "...for their arrogance when their OS also becomes infested with buggy code and virii."


RE: Let's State The Obvious
By lemmy on 7/14/06, Rating: 0
RE: Let's State The Obvious
By Tebor0 on 7/14/2006 1:39:29 PM , Rating: 2
So is spelling more important than grammar?

OMG… ZING!


RE: Let's State The Obvious
By kelmon on 7/14/2006 1:47:49 PM , Rating: 3
Of course, I switched to a Mac because Windows was such a glorious operating system. With approximately 50% of new Mac users defectors from Windows, don't you think there's a reason why?


RE: Let's State The Obvious
By masher2 (blog) on 7/14/2006 2:09:27 PM , Rating: 2
> "approximately 50% of new Mac users defectors from Windows, don't you think there's a reason why? "

Err, where else would they come from? If they're migrating from another OS-- odds are its Windows. I'm surprised the figure isn't much higher.

The relevant figure, however, isn't the breakdown, but rather the total amount of defectors. Which, sad to say, is incredibly small.




RE: Let's State The Obvious
By TomZ on 7/14/2006 2:44:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
With approximately 50% of new Mac users defectors from Windows, don't you think there's a reason why?

I agree with masher2's statement above, and I would add the following. What would be a real intersting statistic is if you could say that x% (where 'x' is a big number) of Windows users are "defecting" to Macs. But in reality, 'x' is quite small, like maybe 1%/year?

Also, I am sure there are a lot of Mac users "defecting" to Windows, since Windows can now be run on Apple hardware. There are also a lot of Mac users "defecting" to Linux as well (do some google searches if you don't believe me). These operating systems allow an Apple hardware user to be able to access the much wider set of compatible hardware devices and applications available for Windows and Linux, relative to OS X. The only question remaining in these cases is whether the Apple user can still retain their "attitude" that seems to accompany Apple ownership (kidding of course).


RE: Let's State The Obvious
By kelmon on 7/15/2006 6:36:40 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, I do entirely agree with you. The number of defectors, in terms of the number of Windows users, is indeed very small. I do, however, find it significant that there are defectors, period. If Windows is so great, why is anyone leaving?

With respect to Apple users running Windows or moving to Linux, I am not going to dispute that in the slightest. In fact, come the next couple of months I'm going to be one of them once Apple gets around to releasing a revised MacBook Pro with a Core 2 Duo processor. I have an old P4 Windows XP PC that I use for playing the odd game (mostly Dawn of War) and that will be disappearing as soon as the new laptop arrives and I get Boot Camp installed on it. I also have a license for Parallel's Desktop software so that I can boot Windows XP and Linux while still running OS X since this will allow me to try out Linux safely and be convenient for running Windows applications that my office uses (mostly web applications that only work under IE). However, while I will be running Windows, I most certainly won't be using it for any serious work and will only run it when absolutely necessary. I was a very experienced Windows user for many years (plus happily built my own gaming computers, which still explains my credit card bills...) but can attest to OS X and it's applications making work so much easier that it's difficult to come to terms with. There is no way that I would do any serious work under Windows because it's just too damned slow and too damned frustrating because of the dumb stuff that it does.

With respect to hardware and application compatibility, I've not generally found this to be a problem with the exception of handsets for Skype. Hardware support by most devices is generally excellent (most stuff works straight out of the box on a Mac with no drivers necessary) and the applications, while not as many, usually beat the crap out of what's available on Windows. As I've said before, quantity does not imply quality and you only need one application to do any given task. I have not had problems getting applications to do what I need and often find that the applications available are wonderfully innovative. Had I had trouble then I would not be buying another Mac...


RE: Let's State The Obvious
By masher2 (blog) on 7/15/2006 11:59:16 AM , Rating: 2
> "If Windows is so great, why is anyone leaving?"

I'm sure you can see the gaping holes in this logic. Most people choose an OS based on their individual needs, and what particular applications are available. One might as well ask-- "if hammers are so great, why are people using screwdrivers?"

Furthermore, I imagine that the majority of "new Apple users" have not 'left' Windows. They're simply adding a new OS to the one(s) they already use.





RE: Let's State The Obvious
By TomZ on 7/15/2006 1:33:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Actually, I do entirely agree with you. The number of defectors, in terms of the number of Windows users, is indeed very small. I do, however, find it significant that there are defectors, period. If Windows is so great, why is anyone leaving?

No non-trivial product can achieve complete satisfaction of 100% of its customers. Therefore, the implication that Windows must have some serious problems because it only retains 99% of its customers is wrong. Actually, the opposite is probably true - 99% is in fact a very high retention rate and probably a statistical indication that the product is pretty good.


RE: Let's State The Obvious
By Hare on 7/14/2006 8:46:52 AM , Rating: 1
Of course there's less interest because Apple has a smaller market share but you have to admin that it's a lot more difficult to make a virus for mac because Apples OS is based on open software that has been reviewed and tested a lot.

If the software is good for linux/unix/bsd machines and critical servers it's pretty good for home computing. The windows has a lot less secure code and it shows. It's not just about the market share.


RE: Let's State The Obvious
By TomZ on 7/14/2006 9:30:48 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Of course there's less interest because Apple has a smaller market share but you have to admin that it's a lot more difficult to make a virus for mac because Apples OS is based on open software that has been reviewed and tested a lot.

1. How many software developers do you think that Microsoft has employed as full-time, professional software testers and security experts? This is a full-time job for thousands of developers at Microsoft.

2. Coming from open-source, OS X also has the security disadvantage of hackers being able to find exploits by having source code. That is at the same time an advantage and a disadvantage.
quote:
If the software is good for linux/unix/bsd machines and critical servers it's pretty good for home computing. The windows has a lot less secure code and it shows. It's not just about the market share.

Your assertion is unproven, and doesn't even make sense. Linux and Unix servers are hacked all the time. Just in today's news is an article about debian.org's servers being hacked.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=3312

You are only continuing to perpetuate unfounded myths and beliefs with open-source software, which doesn't benefit anyone.


RE: Let's State The Obvious
By masher2 (blog) on 7/14/2006 12:03:51 PM , Rating: 3
> "Apples OS is based on open software that has been reviewed and tested a lot...."

Current CERT high security alerts for July:

Ubuntu Linux (open source)
MySQL (open source SQL database)
wvWare (open source library for word documents)
Samba (open source based file/print services)
MPG123 (open source mp3 player for Linux and Unix)
Crisoft Ricette (open source PHP database)
libpng (open source png library)
NewsPHP (open source PHP online publishing)
HSPComplete (open source automation software)
MyAds (open source extension for Xoops)
SMS Script ....


RE: Let's State The Obvious
By Live on 7/14/2006 4:55:39 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know where you get that from. When i look at the cert site I get this:

Alerts
Current Activity

Thu Jul 13 20:43:40 EDT 2006
Multiple Vulnerabilities in Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.0

Public Exploit Code for Unpatched Vulnerabilities in Microsoft Internet Explorer

Public Exploit Code for Unpatched Vulnerability in MS Office Hyperlink Object Library

Active Exploitation of a Vulnerability in Microsoft Excel

FDIC Phishing Scam



RE: Let's State The Obvious
By TomZ on 7/14/2006 5:26:27 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.us-cert.gov/cas/bulletins/SB06-191.html

Lots of open source (and commercial) software in this list.

Interestingly, Mac OS X has a listing as well.


RE: Let's State The Obvious
By Hare on 7/14/2006 5:30:30 PM , Rating: 2
Whoah Masher2. You found Open Source applications with bad security, outstanding. Maybe that's because anyone can write open source. It's a bit different when you talk about enterprise scale applications like Apache (that comes with os X) and say NewsPHP written by God knows who...


RE: Let's State The Obvious
By Hare on 7/14/2006 5:40:48 PM , Rating: 2
The open source foundation matters mostly on worms and exploits. When you are talking about viruses the biggest difference between Windows and Mac OS is that Mac os X has a separate "root" account while windows basically grants administrator rights to every single program. That's simply idiotic and fixed in Vista. XP is a playground for viruses to wreak havoc.


RE: Let's State The Obvious
By TomZ on 7/14/2006 5:47:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
When you are talking about viruses the biggest difference between Windows and Mac OS is that Mac os X has a separate "root" account while windows basically grants administrator rights to every single program.

While I'm sure that does help security, it still does not prevent all exploits. For example, here is a description of a new Linux exploit that provides administrator access from a local user account:

http://nvd.nist.gov/nvd.cfm?cvename=CVE-2006-3378

But I do agree that Windows will be better when most users don't run as adminstrator.


RE: Let's State The Obvious
By TomZ on 7/14/2006 5:44:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Whoah Masher2. You found Open Source applications with bad security, outstanding. Maybe that's because anyone can write open source.

Well, it was in response to your statement,
quote:
it's a lot more difficult to make a virus for mac because Apples OS is based on open software that has been reviewed and tested a lot.

Surely you aren't going to backpedal and say that you meant that OS X is secure because it starts with open source (with potential security vulnerabilities) and then is reviewed by Apple to be made more secure before it is released? That would be a really silly argument, because it is really no different than any commercial software development process. So what is your point exactly?
quote:
It's a bit different when you talk about enterprise scale applications like Apache (that comes with os X) and say NewsPHP written by God knows who...

NewsPHP has a couple "high vulnerability" security entries on the recent CERT report I cited above, so I think the data contradicts your assertion(s).


RE: Let's State The Obvious
By masher2 (blog) on 7/14/2006 6:03:05 PM , Rating: 2
> "Whoah Masher2. You found Open Source applications with bad security... It's a bit different when you talk about enterprise scale applications like Apache (that comes with os X) "

Really?
quote:
- Apache HTTP Server on Win32 systems does not securely handle input passed to CGI programs
- Apache web servers fail to handle chunks with a negative size
- Apache HTTPD contains denial of service vulnerability in basic authentication module
- Apache mod_dav module vulnerable to DoS
- Apache HTTP Server contains a buffer overflow in the mod_proxy module
- Apache Web Server ap_log_rerror() function discloses full path to CGI script
- Apache Portable Runtime contains heap buffer overflow in apr_psprintf()
- Apache HTTP Server vulnerable to DoS race condition in the handling of short-lived connections
- Apache discloses source code via POST requests to a location with WebDAV and CGI enabled
- MandrakeSoft Mandrake Linux Apache default configuration enables Perl ProxyPass server on 8200/tcp
- Oracle9i Application Server Apache PL/SQL module vulnerable to buffer overflow via Database Access Descriptor password
- Oracle9i Application Server Apache PL/SQL module vulnerable to buffer overflow via HTTP Authorization header
- Apache allows arbitrary code execution via crafted POST request containing MS-DOS device name
- Apache vulnerable to buffer overflow when expanding environment variables
- Apache HTTPD server vulnerable to cross site scripting on error page when using wildcard DNS
- Apache stops writing access/error logs after processing "Request-URI" containing "0x1A" characters
- MandrakeSoft Mandrake Linux Apache default configuration sample programs disclose server information
- Apache Web Server vulnerable to DoS via crafted HTTP request
- Apache vulnerable to DoS.
- Apache Tomcat fails to properly handle certain requests
mod_python vulnerable to information disclosure via crafted URL
- Mac OS X Finder creates world-readable ".FBCIndex" file thereby disclosing sensitive information
- Oracle9i Application Server Apache PL/SQL module does not properly decode URL
- Apache Tomcat default installation contains sample applications that disclose webroot path
- Apache PL/SQL module vulnerable to buffer overflow via HTTP Location header
- Oracle 9iAS allows anonymous remote users to view sensitive Apache services by default
- Apache mod_rewrite vulnerable to buffer overflow via crafted regular expression
- Apache mod_alias vulnerable to buffer overflow via crafted regular expression
- mod_ssl fails to properly enforce client certificates authentication
- ModSecurity for Apache vulnerable to off-by-one overflow when directive "SecFilterScanPost" is enabled
- Jakarta Tomcat serves JSP source code when supplied malformed HTTP request
- Buffer Overflow in mod_ssl
- Apache Tomcat vulnerable to Cross-Site Scripting via passing of user input directly to default error page ...[snip]






RE: Let's State The Obvious
By Hare on 7/15/2006 4:28:34 AM , Rating: 2
Every single application has problems. My point was that large scale open software has been "peer reviewed" and usually has less vulnerabilities than commercial closed software or ridiculous one person open source projects. Everyone can make open source so you have to keep in mind that when you compare blaa.php to larger applications like apache.

Flaws in open software are usually noticed by the community and are fixed before actual hacks happen. And please don't list hacked open software applications, I'm just saying that it happens less. I never said OS was perfect!

Just go take a look at IE at CERT and just look at the critical holes that have not been fixed. Compare that to open source firefox. There are advantages to OS and disadvantages. Imho advantages outweigh the disadvantages when it comes to security.


RE: Let's State The Obvious
By Hare on 7/15/2006 4:36:28 AM , Rating: 2
Before anyone replies. The point of my first message was that market share is not the only reason why there are virtually no viruses for X. This is partly because the open source / bsd foundation is solid (no critical worms/exploits). I later added that the biggest reason is the unix-style separate root-account. Apps/viruses normally don't have priviliges to do anything "bad".

I never said the X was perfect and vulnerability free. I just gave couple of reasons why it is that way.


RE: Let's State The Obvious
By TomZ on 7/15/2006 8:26:13 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
My point was that large scale open software has been "peer reviewed" and usually has less vulnerabilities than commercial closed software or ridiculous one person open source projects.

Commercial software is also highly reviewed for security, especially at Microsoft where there is a methodology employed, a very large number of software engineers dedicated to security and test, and an organization-wide commitment and business reasons to producing secure applications. I don't see logically how this is necessarily less effective than some volunteers looking through code now-and-again in their spare time, even if the number of volunteers is large. In most open-source projects that I've seen, the volunteers just struggle to get important functionality implemented, and I have never seen nor heard of a methodological process of code security review in any open source project.

In addition to IMO not having made a logical argument, you have presented no data to back up your assertion. To be fair, I doubt such data even exists, but I think you are drawing unfounded conclusions and stating "facts" based on your personal preference for open source software.


RE: Let's State The Obvious
By masher2 (blog) on 7/15/2006 5:32:07 PM , Rating: 1
> "Every single application has problems..."

Whoa pal, don't trip while you're backpedalling so fast.

> "Flaws in open software are usually noticed by the community..."

The same way flaws in closed source software are found.

> "...and are fixed before actual hacks happen."

Again, true for closed source as well. The vast majority of attacks against Microsoft products are generated from reverse engineering released patches.

> "Everyone can make open source so you have to keep in mind that when you compare blaa.php to larger applications like apache."

I listed 32 major vulnerabilities in Apache alone. That's not the entire list...and thats already *more* than have ever been found for IIS, its closed-source competitor.

So whats your point again?



RE: Let's State The Obvious
By cgrecu77 on 7/14/2006 12:12:51 PM , Rating: 2
a virus has nothing to do with how secure a system is, a virus is just a simple software program that has the ability to spread by attaching to other files ...

I can't even rememember the last time I heard about a really bad virus, with the advent of the internet the focus has changed to exploiting vulnerabilities and social engineering tactics (such as phishing) ... I'm a windows user and I was one for the last 12 years or so and I stopped using antivirus software 5 years ago and I never had any problems whatsoever.



RE: Let's State The Obvious
By TomZ on 7/14/2006 2:13:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
a virus has nothing to do with how secure a system is, a virus is just a simple software program that has the ability to spread by attaching to other files ...

To the extent that a virus leverages a security exploit in existing software, which many but not all do, then it is related to how secure a system is. For example, consider a virus implemented as a Word macro in a document that exploits a security problem in Word in order to execute arbitrary code that can access the system.

But I agree with most of the rest of your statement, that many viruses are spread by people clicking on e-mail attachments with names like "Paris Hilton Nude Video.exe". I also don't use a virus scanner, but I also don't execute attachments, I keep up with the latest security updates, and I don't visit questionable web sites (DT being the exception - kidding).


RE: Let's State The Obvious
By Samus on 7/14/2006 12:00:24 PM , Rating: 1
hahaha, I don't even think they have 2% yet


RE: Let's State The Obvious
By JonB on 7/14/2006 4:32:15 PM , Rating: 2
OSX doesn't have any viruses because OSX users are, as a rule, smarter, better looking and all around better people.


RE: Let's State The Obvious
By masher2 (blog) on 7/14/2006 6:04:21 PM , Rating: 1
> "OSX doesn't have any viruses because OSX users are, as a rule, smarter, better looking and all around better people. "

True. Plus their bank accounts are never large enough to motivate a phishing attack.


RE: Let's State The Obvious
By Ulfhednar on 7/15/2006 2:04:38 AM , Rating: 2
What you mean is that OSX don't suffer from viruses because all five of them don't even know anybody who could.


Think about it
By Schadenfroh on 7/14/2006 8:52:21 AM , Rating: 1
People that write this crap feel sorry for the mac users, they suffer enough as it is.... oh well, time for symantec to make some viruses for it to sell them a security package!




RE: Think about it
By kelmon on 7/14/2006 1:54:34 PM , Rating: 2
Suffer? Suffer from what? I've had the best computing experience bar none during the past 3-years since I got shot of Windows. I suffer every time I have to use Windows at work. As far as I'm concerned, Apple offers as close to computing nirvana as you'll get these days. Given the current state of the PC market it'll be a cold day in hell before I consider a move back.

Good grief...


RE: Think about it
By TomZ on 7/14/2006 3:29:37 PM , Rating: 2
I could express my opinion by exchanging "Mac" and "Windows" in your post - but what is the point of a post simply stating your computer/OS preference?


RE: Think about it
By kelmon on 7/15/2006 7:09:27 AM , Rating: 2
In fairness, I don't often bother posting on the subject at all since, as you note, there isn't much point. However, this post just annoyed me since it implies that I am in some way "suffering" and that I'm either an idiot or just don't know any better. I just found it to be highly insulting and I am sure that you can appreciate that.

Anyway, you since you seem able to string together interesting opinions, certainly when compared to most of the muppets that have posted here, I'd be interested to know what put you off a Mac since I assume that you must have at least used one. Just call it curiosity...


RE: Think about it
By TomZ on 7/15/2006 10:47:33 AM , Rating: 2
There are quite a few factors, really:

1. All of my company's customers - 100% without exception - use Windows. Our customers are companies, so that should be no surprise. We have no customers even studying Linux, let alone Mac/OSX (we poll our customers periodically on this to watch for trends). This drives our choice to use Windows and also to choose software development tools that target Windows.

2. We like to build our own machines (we're a small company, so this is still economical), since it is easy to do and gives benefits like being able to specify all details of the hardware and the ability to move hardware between machines to get the best utilization.

3. We generally have been very satisfied setting up and configuring workstations with WinXP Pro and servers with Win2003 Server. It all works together well.

4. I'm no longer into hassles, underdogs, and other things that take away productivity. Microsoft development tools targeting Windows and hosted on Windows are, AFAIK, the highest productivity approach (esp. VS2005, C#, and .NET). I've worked a lot with Java, for example, and it is not really in the same league. But I can't say anything about OS X native development tools, since I have no experience.

The experience I've had with Macs in the past is that they were okay for word processing, desktop publishing, and graphics; but engineering applications and software development tools were always lacking. I haven't tried OS X, but primarily due to our customers not using it, I don't see that changing any time soon.


RE: Think about it
By kelmon on 7/15/2006 12:04:27 PM , Rating: 2
It's definitely true that most of the world uses Windows and therefore I don't begrudge your company from targeting Windows at the moment. The company that I work for (no names but let's just say that it's very large and transports a lot of packages quickly) runs Windows on workstations but UNIX/Linux/Mainframes for servers, and most of our customer-facing applications only work on Windows. This works great until customers start requesting Mac and Linux support, which I've been getting a few recently. Unfortunately, at this point we have to recommend that they use Windows and really annoy them. This is not good when your company is supposed to be on a customer experience kick at the moment. The best that I can do explain that I feel their pain and try and ensure that our services are more open in the future. IE only support is the main problem and with Firefox becoming increasingly important the Windows-only ethos is becoming difficult to maintain. However, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that we likely have a much more diverse market to support than your company so consider yourself lucky...

With respect to Mac development tools, it's hard to say how they compare beyond noting that they are free. I've found them to do what I want and application development does appear to be much simpler when compared to Java development, particularly when a GUI is involved. The only thing bugging me at the moment is the lack of refactoring such as that seen in Eclipse and, I believe, the Visual Studio. I'm hoping that Leopard will fix this.


RE: Think about it
By TomZ on 7/15/2006 1:40:14 PM , Rating: 2
Interesting read, thanks.

quote:
With respect to Mac development tools, it's hard to say how they compare beyond noting that they are free.

Our experience here is that "free" is not always a bargain. With the average fully-loaded cost of an experienced developer exceeding $100,000/year, spending a few thousand dollars on development tools really is easy to justify if the tools increase the developers' productivity at all.

I'm glad to hear that GUI development with Mac tools is easier than Java. In my limited experience, it's hard to create good-looking and good-performing GUIs in Java without significant work. This same task is trivial in Visual Studio.


RE: Think about it
By kelmon on 7/18/2006 3:03:58 AM , Rating: 2
Just to add a bit more interest, you can actually build Java applications on a Mac that look and function exactly like Cocoa applications (Cocoa being the native API that is typically used in Objective-C applications). Up until recently there was a Java version of each Cocoa class and you designed the GUI using the standard Interface Builder application so the resulting application was indistinguishable for an Onjective-C or C++ version. The problem here, of course, is that Java is slower than compiled code and the Cocoa API isn't available on other platforms so the portability benefits are lost.

At the current moment Java support in Cocoa isn't being maintained in parallel with the Objective-C implementations but would still like to make use of it as a way to port Java applications to the Mac while making them "full" Mac applications. As you note, Swing tends to produce a pretty poor interface and using Interface Builder offers a way to correct this problem. Mind you, I've not tried doing this since I am very definitely a Cocoa newbie at the moment so I still have much to learn first.


RE: Think about it
By funks on 7/18/2006 2:17:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The problem here, of course, is that Java is slower than compiled code and the Cocoa API isn't available on other platforms so the portability benefits are lost.


That's BS, blame Apple for not having a JIT for the PowerPC Processors..

Most people believe Java apps are slow because of the UI latency from swing.

Java apps using native bindings (like SWT) are indistinguishable from native apps (try eclipse on windows which uses SWT)



RE: Think about it
By TomZ on 7/18/2006 9:59:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Java apps using native bindings (like SWT) are indistinguishable from native apps (try eclipse on windows which uses SWT)

Drawback is, apps based on SWT look and behave differently on different platforms. It's a classic tradeoff: consistency (JFC/Swing) versus performance (AWT and SWT).


RE: Think about it
By sxr7171 on 7/15/2006 1:43:23 AM , Rating: 2
Do you like your computers to be slow as hell?


RE: Think about it
By kelmon on 7/15/2006 7:04:00 AM , Rating: 2
No. This is why I don't want to use Windows, thanks very much. I'd also note that you have no idea what you are talking about, particularly these days. Macs are most definitely not "slow as hell" else I would not be using them. As I've already noted in a previous post, I had been running Microsoft operating systems since the days of DOS 6 right through to XP and moved because they were getting slower and slower, plus (frankly) driving me nuts. Macs, oddly, tend to actually get faster with each OS update and I do all my day-to-day work on Mac since it's much faster than any of the PCs at work (mass produced Dell P4 systems, so go figure).

I will note that PCs are much better for games and I have absolutely no problem conceding that particular point. However, I pretty much grew out of games many years ago (mostly because they all seem to be the same these days, although I keep trying them) so in that respect performance is not a concern for me. What I want is a good collection of applications to do what I need at a good speed. In this respect I have this today, it will be even better when I upgrade in the coming months, and I know I won't get a better experience on a PC because I've already "been there and bought the T-shirt".

Computing experience, for me, is everything. Yes, speed is a factor but it's not everything...


The Mac Envy group?
By Logic1 on 7/14/06, Rating: 0
RE: The Mac Envy group?
By TomZ on 7/14/2006 11:35:42 AM , Rating: 2
Do you think so many people would run Windows if it is as bad as you claim it is?

People having tons of problems with their PC either are running an old version of Windows, have very buggy applications and/or device drivers, or have defective hardware (which is actually pretty common). I'm not saying that Windows or applications that run on Windows are perfectly bug-free, but Windows XP is more than reliable enough to be able to use it daily hassle-free.


RE: The Mac Envy group?
By kelmon on 7/14/2006 1:59:48 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Do you think so many people would run Windows if it is as bad as you claim it is?


Yes. Mostly because they don't know any better and are used to Windows. Familiarity provides comfort and most people, having struggled enough the computers in the first place, aren't prepared to try something different. It's a shame that this is the case...

I'm rather expecting this trend to change as Apple opens more stores and people give it a try.


RE: The Mac Envy group?
By TomZ on 7/14/2006 2:34:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes. Mostly because they don't know any better

If people are too dumb to know any better as you say, then what makes you think they will recognize any "advantages" (your view, not mine) to using an Apple?


RE: The Mac Envy group?
By kelmon on 7/15/2006 7:24:02 AM , Rating: 2
Please don't misunderstand me. I am not saying that people are dumb, I am just saying that Windows dominates the market so much that most people probably do not even realise that there is an alternative. This is mostly Apple's own stupid fault and they do deserve the position that they are in by virtue of some really bad mistakes back in the 1990's. The legacy of these mistakes is that the only operating system most people have heard of or see for sale is Microsoft Windows, and it's also the system that they will have used at school, university and in the workplace. Frankly, even if they do know that there is a choice then I would expect many not to take it since they have already invested in both tangible (hardware and software) and intangible (knowledge and experience) aspects of Windows.

Personally, I switched since I didn't have much of a software investment in Windows (traded most of my PC games for a PS2), Java development appeared to be much simpler on a Mac and Windows was seriouly pissing me off. Had it not been for the information about developing Java on a Mac in my text books I likely would not have even considered looking into a Mac as I was still believing a lot of the FUD that existed about Apple at the time. The education discount that I got at the time also helped a whole lot...


RE: The Mac Envy group?
By TomZ on 7/15/2006 8:38:24 AM , Rating: 2
Interesting experience. Just one question, what would make you feel that software development would be better on a Mac? The Java development tools run well on both platforms, and in addition, Windows has lots of other great development tools from companies like Microsoft and Borland, as two examples. Java is nice in that it allows you to write cross-platform software, but productivity in that environment is not the best, and the resulting apps look and perform terrible relative to apps that just target Windows.


RE: The Mac Envy group?
By kelmon on 7/15/2006 9:26:14 AM , Rating: 2
As you note, Java applications look a bit rubbish on most platforms on account of Java typically being treated as a 2nd class citizen. On the Mac, however, Java has been treated (up until recently) as a 1st class citizen along with native Cocoa and Carbon applications. The upshot of this is that Java applications pretty much look the same (same Aqua widgets) and you are guaranteed that every Mac has Java installed. If I had to be honest, the main draw was better looking applications since Java does look poor on most of the other platforms, although I believe this is getting better. The Mac also offers "bridges" between the other programming languages on the platform so that you can use Java libraries in Objective-C applications, or even the other way around. Development of my Java applications was performed using Eclipse, so that'd be the same as everyone else, although I did give Borland's JBuilder a whirl.

At the moment I'm trying to program in Cocoa. As you've noted before, there aren't as many Mac applications as Windows so I'm trying to do my bit, particularly since I have a tool to develop. So far the experience of programming in Objective-C has been very good (aside from retaining/releasing objects, which is a shock coming from Java) and the Cocoa libraries, plus XCode IDE, are excellent. The advent of Core Data in Tiger, for example, has been an absolute boon since (unless you have specific file requirements) you no longer need to write code for opening/saving files and keeping your interface updated is almost trivial. I have no idea what Windows is like beyond Visual Basic, and that just gives me the shakes...


RE: The Mac Envy group?
By sxr7171 on 7/15/2006 1:50:03 AM , Rating: 1
Yeah, we have those bullshit Macs at school. I avoid using that crap as much as I can. It took them how long to realize that maybe having more than one button on a mouse might obviate the need to hold down a key while clicking for certain functions?

Those things are like toy computers for those can't handle a real computer.


RE: The Mac Envy group?
By Hare on 7/15/2006 9:46:58 AM , Rating: 2
Another person who knows nothing about macs and still bashes them. Just plug any logitech or ms etc mouse and you have more buttons (if you don't like the current multibutton apple mouse that comes with the computer).

Yes. Unix is such a toy.


RE: The Mac Envy group?
By TomZ on 7/15/2006 4:37:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Another person who knows nothing about macs and still bashes them.

You are don't know about or are ignoring the fact that support for multi-button mice came late to the Mac. The original poster was alluding to that, not making a statement that the Mac doesn't currently support multi-button mice.


RE: The Mac Envy group?
By TomZ on 7/14/2006 11:36:23 AM , Rating: 2
Oh, yea, I forgot to add - Mac envy - I think not!


Mac VS Windows
By nerdboy on 7/14/2006 7:53:17 AM , Rating: 2
the reason why most virus come out for windows instead of mac is because at least 85% of the world or more, use windows. if everyone started using a mac there would be more viruses for mac.




RE: Mac VS Windows
By TomZ on 7/14/2006 9:31:56 AM , Rating: 2
Windows desktop market share is actually more like 93-95%. But I agree with your conclusion - there is a large "market" for viruses due to the widespread availability of computers running Windows.


RE: Mac VS Windows
By kelmon on 7/14/2006 1:44:36 PM , Rating: 2
Not necessarily. I think your statement would be true if you re-phrased it to "if everyone started using a mac there would be more attempts to write viruses for mac". You make the assumption that the security of both Windows and OS X is equal and that the only differentiating factor is market share. This is not an assumption that I share. Let's be fair, given the disproportional amount of media coverage given to Apple, don't you think virus writers would be falling over themselves to be credited as the creator of the FIRST virus for OS X? With so many on Windows, who'd notice another?


RE: Mac VS Windows
By TomZ on 7/14/2006 2:30:14 PM , Rating: 2
Already happened:

http://www.sophos.com/pressoffice/news/articles/20...

Here's another:

http://www.sophos.com/pressoffice/news/articles/20...

Not sure how Symantec has decided there are no viruses for OS X. Maybe it is a matter of opinion.

I don't see how you developed an opinion that OS X is more inherently secure. OS X is based on Unix code that was originally never written with any security requirements in mind, and it is written in C/C++ using older programming techniques that over time have been shown to create vulnerabilities (e.g., stack buffer overflows).

What you also don't have with OS X is (a) the huge user base (i.e., "market" for virus writers/hackers) as you do with Windows, and (b) the long time period that Windows has been out. OS X has practically no exposure "in the field" for security exploits relative to Windows.

Finally, the argument that in OS X the user doesn't run as root user is pretty bogus as well. If I have access to all my data files, that means a virus that runs with my user privileges also has that access to delete/modify such files. It also doesn't address the situation where an attack causes a system-level service to execute arbitrary code, i.e., a service that doesn't run at user level.


RE: Mac VS Windows
By AbelIAN on 7/15/2006 3:39:58 AM , Rating: 2
"Virus" was used in its technical sense, so worms don't qualify. In any case, Leap-A couldn't do any real damage due to buggy code; not sure about Inqtana-A.


RE: Mac VS Windows
By AbelIAN on 7/15/2006 3:51:22 AM , Rating: 2
Never mind, apparently worms are considered to be a subset of viruses. So, the blogger is obviously wrong.


RE: Mac VS Windows
By masher2 (blog) on 7/15/2006 12:11:09 PM , Rating: 2
> "Never mind, apparently worms are considered to be a subset of viruses"

In strict terminology, this isn't correct; worms and viruses are two distinct categories. In general usage, however, most laymen consider any form of self-replicating program to be a "virus", which makes a worm a subset of the class.


RE: Mac VS Windows
By kelmon on 7/15/2006 6:49:44 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't see how you developed an opinion that OS X is more inherently secure. OS X is based on Unix code that was originally never written with any security requirements in mind, and it is written in C/C++ using older programming techniques that over time have been shown to create vulnerabilities (e.g., stack buffer overflows).


Apologies, you misunderstood my point. I'm not saying that OS X is more secure because I am not a security expert and I have not analysed the code for the OS. What I am saying is that you cannot say that OS X has less malware than Windows due solely to its market share. Unless Microsoft manages to piss away their market such that it has an equal share as OS X (and, let's be fair here, they really are trying to at the moment for reasons best known to themselves), or if OS X suddenly develops a disproportional number of viruses, then we really won't know the answer to this question. I simply find it annoying that market share is apparently the only thing that some people think determines the degree of malware for a selected platform.

I've read the odd article from security researchers who note that OS X is inherently more secure than XP but since these article appear in Mac magazines I tend to take them with a pinch of salt. However, it is nice at the moment to know that there isn't much of a problem with malware. If market share were the only factor determining this quantity of malware then I hope that Apple doesn't gain any more since I am happy as I am.


RE: Mac VS Windows
By TomZ on 7/15/2006 8:32:27 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
What I am saying is that you cannot say that OS X has less malware than Windows due solely to its market share.

I agree, and I said in another post, OS X has had very little experience in the field showing whether it is actually resistant to hacking, since it has been on the market a relatively short time and also has a small (but growing) market share.
quote:
I simply find it annoying that market share is apparently the only thing that some people think determines the degree of malware for a selected platform.

The fact of the matter is the effort invested in hacking the software will be proportional to its market share, and the resulting number and severity of viruses will be a function of this as well as the quality of the code from a security standpoint.


Point is?
By Nik00117 on 7/14/2006 8:34:28 AM , Rating: 2
WOW the mac has no viruses!

That really makes me wanna buy one, thing is half of my games wouldn't work on it, nor 3/4 of the software I use. And with a free anti-virus, free anti-spyware, and free firewall and guess what i'm just as safe as the mac freaks playign the same game that they did 15 years ago.




RE: Point is?
By AppaYipYip on 7/14/2006 8:36:34 AM , Rating: 1
So by your logic, you are 15 years behind us Mac users?


Anyway, I do all of my important work and media work on my Macs. They are my life. I custom built my gaming rig to play games.

OS X > Windoze.


RE: Point is?
By sxr7171 on 7/15/2006 1:40:24 AM , Rating: 1
Well, if your Macs are your "life," then you should maybe consider getting a life.


RE: Point is?
By cscpianoman on 7/14/2006 8:45:23 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, Macs do have viruses, it's just all of them are useless right now. There's a list out there mentioning about 400 or so. You can almost say Windows has no viruses either. Keeping either you Mac or PC updated and behind a firewill will virtually eliminate all virus threats, that and don't be stupid enough to open attachments screaming virus, or visiting sites you know you shouldn't. Mac has security updates just like PCs, it's just the security exploits for Mac haven't been exploited yet.


RE: Point is?
By Hare on 7/14/2006 8:48:54 AM , Rating: 2
Mac OS X has no real viruses. Who cares about the old OS 9. With that logic I could say that windows doesn't have networking. At least it didn't have at the time of 2.5, but now does :|


RE: Point is?
By cscpianoman on 7/14/2006 9:09:37 AM , Rating: 2
You're right OSX doesn't have viruses. I ran a search for Mac viruses and came across a macobserver article discussing the matter. He came to the conclusion there were roughly 550 viruses for the older generation stuff, but mostly concerning Office. 50 were actually viruses of concern to the OS and, of course zero for OSX. What was failed to mention was the McAfee website listed some 71,000 threats, running a search of Windows XP left us with only 3670. Yeah, there are viruses for XP, but there are not 100s of thousands of threats. I just hate the myth going around that PCs are attacks just waiting to happen. You have to actually be looking for one of those 3670 viruses to actually get it on your PC.


RE: Point is?
By TomZ on 7/14/2006 2:32:34 PM , Rating: 2
See my post above that cites two reported OS X viruses.


RE: Point is?
By kennyb on 7/15/2006 10:36:13 AM , Rating: 2
The article was dated February 16, 2006. Did you read the article?

"The Inqtana worm exploits a vulnerability (known as CAN-2005-1333) to spread itself to other vulnerable Mac OS X computers. However, Apple released a patch against the vulnerability in mid 2005, meaning the worm is highly unlikely to spread successfully."



RE: Point is?
By TomZ on 7/15/2006 11:08:37 AM , Rating: 2
The statement is that OS X has no viruses. The existence of a virus, either past or present, disproves the statement.


Oh yea, the new strategy
By Griswold on 7/14/2006 8:02:26 AM , Rating: 2
With MS bullying into the anti virus market, all the traditional anti-virus-solution providers are concerned about their bottom line in the future.

What better way is there to open up new markets by promoting how little malware exists for OSX? Make people aware of it, give them one more reason to jump on the mactel bandwagon and presto - 2 years from now, apples market share may have risen to the point where there is actually some malware on that platform. Symantec & gang to the rescue!

A whole new world to sell your junk to, Symantec!

Btw, symantec aint the only company talking about the malware situation for OSX as of late.. it surely looks like a pattern.




RE: Oh yea, the new strategy
By INeedCache on 7/14/2006 8:09:16 AM , Rating: 2
It would only be right seeing the Symantec and McAfee bloatware on Macs.


What's wrong with Mcafee?
By Blackraven on 7/14/2006 10:55:45 AM , Rating: 2
I've been using 2006 Internet Security Suite for three months and no problems so far.

I dunno why there is hatred in this site against Network Associates.


RE: What's wrong with Mcafee?
By Araxen on 7/14/2006 11:40:13 AM , Rating: 2
Because it's bloatware and it bogs down your system. I use NOD32 as my anti-virus and you can barely tell its there. It's one of the best rated anti-virus out there with none of the bloat.


RE: What's wrong with Mcafee?
By Scrogneugneu on 7/14/2006 10:47:01 PM , Rating: 3
No problems so far, who told you so? Norton?

My girlfriend had Norton. Everything was fine, even if I told her that it was probably one of the worst solution out there (AND, you have to pay for it). Then, some day, Norton popped a message : "Hey, we found a virus. But it's all right, we've got rid of it. You're safe!". she was glad Norton protected her computer. She was very happy until 15 minutes later, when the exact same message popped again. And every 15 minutes, from then.


She performed full system scans. 5 of them. Every time, nothing came up. The popup was still there. I made her try Anti-vir. Guess what? 25 viruses found. No more troubles afterwards. She uninstalled Norton, and suddenly her computer was faster. She could load up applications much faster, there was no stuttering...


From that day, she stopped using Norton product. Forever.


RE: What's wrong with Mcafee?
By dilz on 7/15/2006 2:24:34 PM , Rating: 2
Using Symantec/McAfee is tantamount to (properly) using a prophylactic. Sure you should use it/them, but many of us choose not to for obvious and logical reasons.

I think you're seeing an expression of personal choice, rather than hatred, concerning Network Associates' products. Go to a cooking forum and see how they react to your praising of TV dinners...

Take responsibility for your computer use! Bareback is the WTG! :P


RE: What's wrong with Mcafee?
By TomZ on 7/15/2006 3:14:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Using Symantec/McAfee is tantamount to (properly) using a prophylactic. Sure you should use it/them, but many of us choose not to for obvious and logical reasons.

That's an intersting, but not accurate analogy. If you get a virus on your computer, you can pretty easily fix that. If you get, e.g., AIDS, it's quite a lot more serious obviously.


Survival Time < 20 minutes
By shamgar03 on 7/14/2006 11:25:48 AM , Rating: 2
I like how people think you just get virus'. Its not like a real life virus where you might of stood too close to the coughing guy. If you are smart you will never get a virus. I have never gotten a virus. I suspect this is the case for most of the readers here because they already know what I am about to say. All you need is zonealarm firewall and to update windows (and to disable automatic attachment reading/image loading in outlook). You should probobly have a virus scanner, but that is a failsafe. I think people would realise this if they would actually do research before they said "Oh lets jump ship because macs are 100% safe" The fact is stupid people will never be safe not even macs will make it so




RE: Survival Time < 20 minutes
By TomZ on 7/14/2006 11:32:20 AM , Rating: 2
I agree - I've never installed anti-virus software, and I've never had a virus on any of my Windows machines.


RE: Survival Time < 20 minutes
By Wolfpup on 7/14/2006 11:59:47 AM , Rating: 1
I used to think I was safe like that-until several days in a row Symantec's thing caught a virus that was (almost) installed through a Java app displaying as an ad. Talk about a way to get around Firefox's security...

Anyway, point is, even if you're smart about what you do online (as I'm sure all of us are), it turns out you're not actually 100% safe.


RE: Survival Time < 20 minutes
By delta53 on 7/14/2006 8:45:21 PM , Rating: 3
Sure TomZ. That is like saying if I only have with 'safe' s I will not get an STD. Are you kidding. AOL did a study and found that a computer will be attacked by a virus within 30 seconds of connecting to the internet. That happened to me the last time I reformatted. Luckly, I had already installed my antivirus program. BTW, I had not even opened IE yet. Granted, most viruses are STD's from sites but you don't have to go looking for it.

Long story short, when you go out there, us protection.


RE: Survival Time < 20 minutes
By TomZ on 7/15/2006 8:45:44 AM , Rating: 2
You can give me advice if you want, but I am an expert user and I've been running Windows for 10+ years now, on a number of machines (including several servers), and never had a problem with a virus.

Security companies like customers like you who live in fear of such things. The reality is that the software is inherently pretty secure when patched to current levels and that good usage habits are effective in avoiding problems. For novice users who are willing to activate incoming e-mail attachments like "Paris Hilton Nude Video.exe," they should for sure use AV software, but for the rest of us, it is totally unnecessary.


RE: Survival Time < 20 minutes
By Hare on 7/15/2006 9:07:26 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I agree - I've never installed anti-virus software, and I've never had a virus on any of my Windows machines.
Eh. You have never installed anti-virus software and you say that you have never had viruses? How the hell do you know you haven't had viruses? There are also viruses that don't just delete your files and show stupid pop-up windows.

I think it would be idiotic to handle client emails etc without a virus scanner. It's just good practise.


RE: Survival Time < 20 minutes
By TomZ on 7/15/2006 9:17:09 AM , Rating: 2
I run McAfee FreeScan from time-to-time, and it's never found a virus. Please see my comments above.


the symantec blogger was WRONG
By kurt wismer on 7/14/2006 12:55:05 PM , Rating: 2
would everyone please read the page the symantec blogger links to for the write-up for osx/leap.a - even though the blogger says it doesn't infect files, the virus analysis performed by his own company says otherwise... and symantec is not the only company whose analysis says it's a file infector (though some make it more clear that it's an intended companion file infector that wound up being an overwriting file infector due to a bug)...

that means there is a virus for osx...




RE: the symantec blogger was WRONG
By TomZ on 7/14/2006 2:31:08 PM , Rating: 2
Two actually; see my post above.


By kurt wismer on 7/14/2006 4:50:39 PM , Rating: 2
using the symantec blogger's distinction between worms and viruses, osx/inqtana does not qualify as a virus... osx/leap does, however, which is rather embarassing for the blogger as he clearly didn't read the pages he was linking to...


RE: the symantec blogger was WRONG
By kennyb on 7/15/2006 10:47:48 AM , Rating: 2
You are still quoting this? Sophos is promoting "Sophos Anti-Virus for Mac OS X". One of the articles was dated Febuary 16, 2006 while the vulnerability that it referred to was patched in mid-2005.


RE: the symantec blogger was WRONG
By kennyb on 7/15/2006 11:11:58 AM , Rating: 1
Correction... Feb 18, just woke up.
Still, from the comments i've read here, very few people have used OS X. If you're going to bash the Mac, do it right.

One of the things i don't like about OS X is that there are less shortcut keys available. I can easily navigate almost every app on a Windows machine using only the keyboard. Also, window resizing sucked for a long time, years actually, before it was made to perform acceptably. It's also not as customizable as Windows, especially the UI and 3rd party apps don't count. Contextual support is also in the toilet.

But, by default, important services are turned off. Goddamn you MS, why has it taken you so long? If Macs are for "idiots" , like someone claimed, why did it take the so-called smart people so long to figure out that computers are tools, and just like cars, you don't need to be an expert to use one.

It's amusing to hear people rant about Vista this and Vista that but fail to realize that OS X already has similiar features. For people that complained about OS X's UI being slow, yeah it was, before hardware acceleration of the UI. Imagine how slow Vista would be if the cpu was doing all of the work of drawing the UI.


Writing Viruses
By tersome on 7/14/2006 11:50:56 AM , Rating: 2
Haha, I love how they say that "one or more may appear in the next five months."

My brother in law works at a certain computer security company, and he told me that they have a certain division dedicated to writing viruses for a certain platform to justify a certain product.




RE: Writing Viruses
By cgrecu77 on 7/14/2006 12:16:48 PM , Rating: 2
I really doubt that is true for any major antivirus company out there. Do you realise what would happen if this information gets public? And don't think that it wouldn't go, all secrets go public eventually, it's impossible to stop them short of physically eliminating all parties involved ... :)


RE: Writing Viruses
By masher2 (blog) on 7/15/2006 5:36:57 PM , Rating: 2
> "My brother in law works at a certain computer security company...they have a certain division dedicated to writing viruses"

My brother in law is a fireman. On slow nights, they sneak out and start a few fires, for additional job security.


RE: Writing Viruses
By TomZ on 7/15/2006 6:04:32 PM , Rating: 2
LOL, that's good.

But seriously, I could imagine a possibility of an AV vendor internally writing viruses to test known possible exploits and/or to test their software's ability to detect and remove such an internal virus. No different than a fire department doing a controlled burn of a house for training purposes.

But obviously the implication of the original poster is that the AV company writes viruses and releases them into the wild in order to sell more AV software. This is of course unbelievable because it is not just potential bad PR, but also an excellent way for employees of such a company to end up in jail.


User Error
By dev0lution on 7/14/2006 10:59:37 PM , Rating: 2
I wish more "beginner" computer users would switch to a mac since OS X assumes you're an idiot and doesn't let you run in root to save the average mac user from himself vs. Windows which assumes the user knows what they're doing, when 90% of them don't.

I don't know how many friends/family I know that've reduced their PC to pre-1984 performance with Spyware, virii, junk even with AV products installed. I want my weekends back!




RE: User Error
By sxr7171 on 7/15/2006 1:53:46 AM , Rating: 2
Tell me about it. I have this problem everytime with people wanting me to check their computers. I suppose getting them to buy Macs would be a good thing. I guess it is fitting that idiots use Macs after all.


RE: User Error
By kennyb on 7/15/2006 11:19:33 AM , Rating: 2
By your rationale, Unix users are idiots too since they are not allowed to run as root by default.


Car Analogy
By dilz on 7/15/2006 2:14:13 PM , Rating: 2
They generally suck, but this one actually fits:

Apple = AT/FWD
PC = MT/RWD

My parents resisted my suggestion to buy an Apple. Luckily, we live on opposite coasts. :)


Bullseye
By CKDragon on 7/14/2006 6:47:01 AM , Rating: 2
While I'm sure Apple loves the positive publicity, my first instinct is to think that Symantec just put a huge bullseye on OS X.




RE: Bullseye
By Araxen on 7/14/2006 11:35:12 AM , Rating: 3
Exactly, this was Symantec's way of saying "I challenge the virus writers of the world to make a virus for OS X so we can sell a ton of anti-virus software for OS X."


RE: Bullseye
By dilz on 7/14/2006 2:36:09 PM , Rating: 2
I think I saw the unedited title of this article floating around.

"Symantec Offers $100 reward for "proof" of OSX virus"


It matters?
By CrossFusion on 7/15/2006 3:24:58 AM , Rating: 1
Viruses or not, it really doesnt matter because of the lack of support for macs developer-wise. always comes back to the old apple switch ad. Photoshop is totally a game guys.




RE: It matters?
By Hare on 7/15/2006 11:09:54 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly what is lacking? Could you be a bit more specific?


RE: It matters?
By TomZ on 7/15/2006 4:44:17 PM , Rating: 2
First thing that Macs are lacking for developers is a market consisting of hundreds of millions of users that could actually run the software that I develop.

Next, it would be nice if Visual Studio 2005, C#, and the .NET framework were available for Mac, since that is probably the most capable and productive development environment currently available.


RE: It matters?
By kelmon on 7/18/2006 2:51:51 AM , Rating: 2
Ultimately, does that really matter? The fact of the matter is that the Mac has a significant market such that major manufacturers of software have to support it and the number of such developers is increasing. Your statement appears to suggest that developers shouldn't bother to support any other platform than Windows and I consider that wrong on many levels, not least for the reason that it continues Windows' monopoly which is not good for the industry (it is for this reason that I also do not wish to see the Mac "beat" Windows since then the same problem will occur).

The problem with making Visual Studio available on a Mac is that you'll just have Windows programs running on a Mac and that market has no demand for this. I can understand that for developers this will make life easier but your customers will not want this since they did not purchase a Mac for this purpose. The only exception to this would be if a Mac version of Visual Studio is able to make use of the Cocoa frameworks such that the applications developed can be made "Mac", such as through storing passwords and security certificates in the Keychain, etc..

Personally, I like the diversity. Supporting multiple operating systems must be a real pain without a cross-platform language, but at least it does not mean that we are stuck with the lowest common denominator. Imagine if C# was ported to all platforms. Yes, it would make life nice and simple but then you would need to wait for Microsoft to deliver updates to the language and would not be able to take advantage of updates made to alternative native languages on the other platforms. The OS X, for example, tends to deliver major updates and additions to its frameworks in each release that make life simpler but using C# would prevent using them unless Microsoft also introduced them.

I should also note that it's probably not a good idea to suggest that Windows provides the most capable and productive development environment since, based on our other discussions, you do not seem to have experienced the development tools on the Mac. This goes both ways since I have no experience with the tools on Windows. The best that can be said is that you like the tools available on Windows but until you have experienced the tools available on the other platform it's a little hard to say that they are the best.

Anyway, as far as my experience goes with a Mac over the past few years, the only thing lacking for me is support for Skype hardware devices which tend to only have drivers for Windows (this maybe the fault of the manufacturer or Skype, I'm not sure which). Beyond this I have not found the Mac to be lacking anything else and the misnomer of the Mac lacking software is totally false. Please note, however, that games do not interest me so if they are important to you then you'll find the Mac lacking some of the big releases.


Mac VS Windows
By nerdboy on 7/14/2006 7:53:18 AM , Rating: 2
the reason why most virus come out for windows instead of mac is because at least 85% of the world or more, use windows. if everyone started using a mac there would be more viruses for mac.




RE: Mac VS Windows
By nerdboy on 7/14/2006 7:53:41 AM , Rating: 2
i don't know how two of these got on here


right on
By Randum on 7/14/2006 11:17:11 AM , Rating: 2
yes I feel bad enough for mac users...why give them more crap!

In any case, I think this is a nice open invite for your uber haxxors out there to get crackin!




That they know of
By Trisped on 7/14/2006 1:44:45 PM , Rating: 2
Just because they don't know about it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. For all they know their is a virus, it just doesn't spread very well due to the lack of targets.




By kondor999 on 7/17/2006 11:13:00 AM , Rating: 1
While Masher2 is often erudite and largely correct in many of his assertions, I find his style to be unnecessarily abrasive and rude.

Why is it necessary to make people feel stupid to get your point across? Usually because you're insecure in some other area, and you compensate with this sort of narcissism.

It seems like he is less interested in the spirit (or even the subject matter) of debate than he is in winning the debate, preferably at the expense of someone else's ego (or so he might imagine).

I began to realize this when I noticed that, even when people agree with him, he never forgives them for having once disagreed. He often labels it as "backpedaling". Why?

Because his goal is not to actually have a spirited debate from which some sort of consensus arises. His goal is simply to humiliate anyone with the temerity to disagree.

Masher2, did you say you were educated in Russia? Yes, that makes sense now...




"Can anyone tell me what MobileMe is supposed to do?... So why the f*** doesn't it do that?" -- Steve Jobs









botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki