Macs are more secure, not just because Windows has more marketshare...

[Snowy_River]

With all of the clattering about of viruses for Windows recently, I've been very greatful for the fact that I'm on a Mac, and therefore immune to such things. Yes, I know that it would be theoretically possible for a Mac OS X virus to crop up at some point, but I've rarely, if ever, heard of a true Mac virus in all of my years of Macintosh computing.

Indeed, I've often discussed the fact that Macs offer a higher level of security against such things. However, many PC users have countered by saying that this was simply because Macs had such a low marketshare, and they weren't inherently safer than Windows machines.

Well, I now have an answer to that. Yes they are. Here are two articles that talk about precisely that, and just how vulnerable Windows really is, in comparison.

From the Washington Post. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34978-2003Aug23.html)

From MacNN. (http://www.macnn.com/news/17191)

[Powerbook G5]

I feel good knowing that the OS I use is programmed by competent people who know how to write good software.

[xpormac]

Originally posted by Powerbook G5
I feel good knowing that the OS I use is programmed by competent people who know how to write good software.

ah come on man, if the people that wrote windows were incompetent, do you think it would have as much support as it does now? Lets see you write an OS that can support millions of hardware items. I'm sure it will be so much better than these incompetent people's work :rolleyes:

[FredAkbar]

Originally posted by xpormac
Lets see you write an OS that can support millions of hardware items. I'm sure it will be so much better than these incompetent people's work :rolleyes:

Sorry but this is a peeve of mine...

Did PowerbookG5 say that he could write better software than MS? No, he didn't, did he? But he doesn't get paid billions of dollars a year to write software does he? No, he doesn't. MS does.

When someone criticizes something else, it doesn't mean they're saying that they could do a better job--they're just saying that (in this case) MS doesn't make software of good-enough quality to deserve to make billions a year.

[/rant] :)

[xpormac]

Millions of happy customers don't qualify to make millions/billions a year?

[FredAkbar]

Windows popularity --> more software for it and more people using it because it's "the standard OS" --> more Windows popularity --> and so on...

All I'm saying is that there are other factors for people choosing Windows than just looking at each OS and deciding that it's a "better" OS.

I'll admit, you can call it kind of an exaggeration to say that MS is "incompetent"...obviously they do know how to make an OS that usually works. But even so, PowerbookG5 didn't say he could do better or anything. That was the only thing I had a problem with there.

[chewbaccapits]

great to know...I am a little proud that my mac dollars are spread for great security...

[RandomDeadHead]

Originally posted by xpormac
Millions of happy customers don't qualify to make millions/billions a year?

These people think they are happy because that's what microsoft tells them to think.

They don't know the difference.

[xpormac]

Originally posted by RandomDeadHead
These people think they are happy because that's what microsoft tells them to think.

They don't know the difference.


oh give me a ****ing break. This isn't 1984 and microsoft isn't the government. If people don't like something, they won't buy it again.

[mod. edit - Don't circumvent the profanity filter.]

[Stike]

Originally posted by xpormac
If people don't like something, they won't buy it again.

Well, that is the case if they KNOW that they have a CHOICE. But if you go to a local comp store, all you will see are PCs with Win preinstalled... so our frustrated user leaves a *sigh* and tries to cope with M$ crap...

[billyboy]

Getting down to brass tacks, this thread sheds some light on the practicalities of why nasty hackers arent screwing with Mac OSX. Basically they just arent clever enough. :o

http://forums.maccentral.com/wwwthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news030821virusphp&Number=521093&view=expanded

It is in MS interest to spread the myth that Windows is vulnerable because everyone´s out to get them. That is far better PR than saying that the combined cleverness of their developers still hasnt got over basic design flaws and they have no choice but to be forever patching an insecure OS.

[Powerbook G5]

Originally posted by xpormac
ah come on man, if the people that wrote windows were incompetent, do you think it would have as much support as it does now? Lets see you write an OS that can support millions of hardware items. I'm sure it will be so much better than these incompetent people's work :rolleyes:

Dude, you need to take a dang chill pill. I did not say anything besides that I like the fact that the people who made OS X did a good job and I enjoy the feeling I get from using a really well made OS.

On another note, if you think everyone using a PC is happy with Windows or Microsoft, you seriously need to get a psych evaluatation.

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by xpormac
Millions of happy customers don't qualify to make millions/billions a year?

Happy? Should I give you a littany of Windows users I know whe aren't happy?

Originally posted by xpormac
... This isn't 1984 and microsoft isn't the government. If people don't like something, they won't buy it again.

The problem with this argument goes beyond the perception of choice, to the very existence of choice. Most of the people I know in industry have to use Windows (myself included) because the software that they use to do their work is only available for Windows. Linux isn't an option. Mac OS X isn't an option. So, they have to continue to use an OS that they don't like.

It's very easy for people who are only using their computers for things like word processing, email and web browsing to think that everyone has a choice in what computer platform they use. Unfortunately, that really isn't the case.

[iPC]

Judging by the monthly security updates for OS X, Macs are not anywhere near invulnerable.

If your computer is on a network, you are vulnerable. The OS does not matter. All this stuff is written by people after all...

[vniow]

Originally posted by xpormac
Lets see you write an OS that can support millions of hardware items.

My lack of a better idea doesn't necessarily make your idea good.

-Gelfin

[rueyeet]

Originally posted by xpormac
Millions of happy customers don't qualify to make millions/billions a year?

A great many of those customers have their choices made for them by their IT department. Many also become, and remain, Microsoft customers because they don't have any realistic idea of an alternative. They may have heard of Linux or the Mac, but those are those freaky things that those other wierdos run. Computers mean Windows PCs, and Internet Explorer is the Web.

Just this week my sister sent me a humor forward with the title, "I don't hate my computer, I just want to hurt it sometimes." The forward then proceeds to list all the commonly known, oft-repeated woes of computing--and I was startled to realize that about half of those were Windows-specific.

Millions of happy customers WOULD qualify income of millions or billions a year. But I'll have to disagree with you that the largest portion of Windows users are "happy" customers--except in the sense that as long as they can get away from a computing session where nothing goes wrong, they're happy to be done with the computer for the day. I know--I supported a bunch of ordinary everyday Windows users back when I did help desk.

[macktheknife]

Every program and OS has a vulnerability--be it Windows or OS X. I think calling the programmers at Microsoft "incompetant" just because others have found a way to exploit flaws in Windows is way off the mark. Virus attacks hit Windows simply because the virus authors are spending more time trying to exploit vulnerabilities in the OS most people use.

Apple has released many security patches too. For instance, about a year ago, Apple discovered that someone could exploit a vulnerability in OS X that would direct the Update Software feature to another site instead of Apple's. In other words, a user could have been downloading software that could potentially harm the computer. Apple released a patch to fix this issue, but prior to the patch's release, anyone could have taken advantage of this flaw. To the best of my knowledge, no one did.

Remember also that there is nothing Microsoft can do to stop people from double-clicking those .exe and .pif attachments they receive from the net. Remember also the SQL slammer worm that brought internet traffic to its knees a few months ago: Microsoft had released a patch months prior to the attack but many people simply did not install it.

I think ridiculing Microsoft for Windows' vulnerabilities to attacks is a poor way to make Mac users feel better about OS X when every program has vulnerabilities.

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by macktheknife
Every program and OS has a vulnerability--be it Windows or OS X.

Of course. No one has suggested that OS X is invulnerable.

...Virus attacks hit Windows simply because the virus authors are spending more time trying to exploit vulnerabilities in the OS most people use...

Well, yes and no. Did you read the articles that I posted at the beginning of this thread? It seems that even if Mac OS X was a primary target, it would be a much harder target to hit than Windows, according to various security analyses.

...I think ridiculing Microsoft for Windows' vulnerabilities to attacks is a poor way to make Mac users feel better about OS X when every program has vulnerabilities.

I think the ridicule is deserved for the fact that Windows has been shown to have been designed with a poor eye toward security. The design choices made by MS are what I choose to ridicule, for leaving their OS so vulnerable to attack. The question isn't whether or not a system is vulnerable, the question is how vulnerable it is, and how hard the authors of the system have worked to eliminate the vulnerabilities...

[Powerbook G5]

The thing is, no one called Microsoft incompetent on this thread besides xpormac. He took what I said and blew it way out of focus. He has to realize that just because I said I am glad and secure in knowing that OS X is written by copetent software developers, it's simply that, and I like using my Mac because I know they work hard to make it the best platform they can. If he is going to get bent out of shape because people here prefer Macs, then he obviously doesn't understand the fact that this website is designed and subcribed to by Mac users and Mac enthusiasts. I did not say a single thing about Microsoft and he completely went off on his own tangent.

[bobindashadows]

Seriously people... I'm willing to bet that 75% of the UNIX binaries that come installed on Mac OS X are vulnerable to attack. Sure, Apple didn't write them, but it doesn't mean they aren't vulnerable. If you take a nice jaunt to securityfocus, you can find all kinds of major advisories about OpenSSH, sendmail, probably the apache version shipping with os x, and many more. The thing is, Apple doesn't ship the computer with these open.

To the person who said that "if you have your computer on a network you are vulnerable" - you are actually wrong about this - if you don't have ports open, how will you be attacked by a worm, or a bored hacker?

Oh, sure, if you open shifty .app's or just applications, then you are asking for trouble, but we're talking about the vulnerability of the OS, not the user.

[xpormac]

[mod. edit - Don't circumvent the profanity filter.]

apologize, sorry.

[patrick0brien]

Originally posted by xpormac
oh give me a ****ing break. This isn't 1984 and microsoft isn't the government. If people don't like something, they won't buy it again.

[mod. edit - Don't circumvent the profanity filter.]

-xpormac

Your initial reaction is a bit justified, but have you read Windows EULA word for word?

What's worse is Passport's EULA.

Those are scarier than George Orwell's 1984 itself.

There are many many hidden files within DOS and Windows that collect emails and web URLS and clicks. Most of these files you can only get to if you know the specific path because they've been purposely set to +s[ystem].

HKEY_CURRENT_USER/Software/Microsoft/Internet Explorer/TypedURLs/ is one such file, that store every URL you visit.

As of knowing this, every PC I own and will own will only contain the bare minimum of my personal information. Essentially, I will only use personal PC's for those apps and tool I can't use on my Macs. And that leaves pretty much only games.

People mostly buy something due to habit, and ignorance of options. This is classic buying behavior and we all do it to some degree.

[skychum]

Didn't Apple move production of OSX overseas to Taiwan? Yeah, they did. So, since it is coded by asians, you can be assured OSX is far superior.

[besson3c]

Windows design flaws:

- Lack of user level permissions. Anybody who is set as a Power User (or whatever) has free reign to modify their Windows installation. Programs run as a Power User can get in the registry and do as they please, without any feedback or obvious clue that they are being malicious. In contrast, admins in OS X are not able to touch the OS X system files without authenticating. Sure, this may not be enough of a deterrent in some cases, but it still gives the end user a greater degree of control over their systems. This may be why we also part of the reason why we don't have any Spyware. It is extremely difficult to be granted root access without authenticating.

- "Integration". When you can get a virus simply by visiting a webpage (via Direct X stuff), something isn't right. Have you ever sent a Windows user to that webpage that makes their CD-Rom tray eject?

- It seems unclear right now whether a program run on OS X can access the Address Book and progogate worms by mass mailing address book contacts. So many worms on Windows are exploiting this same basic flaw.

- Windows XP ships with 5 open ports, OS X: none.

- It is sometimes difficult to uninstall Windows apps. That is why programs like AdAware exist.

- IIS

- file name extensions are hidden unconditionally, making it possible to send files titled myfile.zip.pif and trick people into thinking that the file is actually a .zip file.

- Windows is too "pushy" about installing Passport, doing this, doing that. People perhaps habitually ignore critical update alerts like they do that paper clip guy in Office.

[patrick0brien]

Originally posted by skychum
Didn't Apple move production of OSX overseas to Taiwan? Yeah, they did. So, since it is coded by asians, you can be assured OSX is far superior.

-skychum

This caused me to utter a full-on "Huh?"

Please don't run into a room, throw a steak in, and run. Can you add some info? What aspects of production? Simple Disk pressing? When? etc.

[dcb]

I read those articles. The Washington Post article is an OP/ ED piece and anything on MAC NN is apple EXTREMELY biased. Furthermore, if you read the article, despite the fact that the author is biased, he readily admits that users can easily avoid attacks.

Despite what you may think, OSX is vulnerable...hackers just don't want to waste their time with small potatoes. Hackers go after windows because they own the market - it is that simple. Why would you attack only 10 if you can attack 90? I suppose you could call it Return on Investment.

Originally posted by Powerbook G5
On another note, if you think everyone using a PC is happy with Windows or Microsoft, you seriously need to get a psych evaluatation.

And if you think everyon is happy with apple then you need to get a psych evaluation! I know you didn't say that and XP never said the same.

Originally posted by skychum
Didn't Apple move production of OSX overseas to Taiwan? Yeah, they did. So, since it is coded by asians, you can be assured OSX is far superior.

Asians code better???

Originally posted by besson3c
Windows design flaws:

- Lack of user level permissions.

Just not true! You can log on as a basic user...and if you need permissions to perform a task, you can (I think it is) right shift click and open as an admin.

Anyway, interestingly enough, don't you think it is a little odd that every time Apple is about to launch a new product, a major virus attacks pc's?

[besson3c]

Originally posted by dcb
[B]I read those articles. The Washington Post article is an OP/ ED piece and anything on MAC NN is apple EXTREMELY biased. Furthermore, if you read the article, despite the fact that the author is biased, he readily admits that users can easily avoid attacks.

Despite what you may think, OSX is vulnerable...hackers just don't want to waste their time with small potatoes. Hackers go after windows because they own the market - it is that simple. Why would you attack only 10 if you can attack 90? I suppose you could call it Return on Investment.


I don't buy that in the slightest. Windows is full of security design flaws. See my last post.



Just not true! You can log on as a basic user...and if you need permissions to perform a task, you can (I think it is) right shift click and open as an admin.

That's not what I meant. What I was referring to was that programs can muck around with your Windows installation. I pulled the term "user level" permissions from the Washington Post article linked to in the original post.

[skychum]

Originally posted by patrickObrien
-skychum

This caused me to utter a full-on "Huh?"

Please don't run into a room, throw a steak in, and run. Can you add some info? What aspects of production? Simple Disk pressing? When? etc.

I heard on a radio report that Apple was "moving it's development of... OS X to Taiwan.", but an extensive web search reveals nothing to support this claim, so you can forget about your stupid steak.

[dcb]

The point is this. There is no such thing as 100% secure. If someone wants to do something, they will find a way to do it! Users have to take a little responsibility to protect themselves...it is that simple. As someone said earlier, OSX has patches too.

The problem Microsoft has is that they have a target painted on their back. And on top of that, they have to concern themselves with compatibility, ease of use, appearance and so on. If Apple had to worry about making its OS compatible with as many 3rd party applications as Microsoft, they would be challenged as well.


And why is Microsoft responsible for people who committ crimes? That is like saying it is the airlines fault for 9/11. Remember, these computer terrorists are planning their attacks...Microsoft is doing their best to stay ahead of them.

I would like to see any one or group of people in this room do a better job!

And yes, if Apple had a better marketshare, they would be attacked as well. If you don't believe that you need some serious help.

[besson3c]

Originally posted by dcb
The point is this. There is no such thing as 100% secure. If someone wants to do something, they will find a way to do it! Users have to take a little responsibility to protect themselves...it is that simple. As someone said earlier, OSX has patches too.

The problem Microsoft has is that they have a target painted on their back. And on top of that, they have to concern themselves with compatibility, ease of use, appearance and so on. If Apple had to worry about making its OS compatible with as many 3rd party applications as Microsoft, they would be challenged as well.


That's complete and utter B.S.

Shipping an OS with 5 ports open has *nothing* to do with application compatability, ease of use, appearance, etc. The Direct-X exploits in IE have nothing to do with application compatability, etc. Most of the other things I listed have very little to do with this as well.

What do you base your claims on?

And why is Microsoft responsible for people who committ crimes? That is like saying it is the airlines fault for 9/11. Remember, these computer terrorists are planning their attacks...Microsoft is doing their best to stay ahead of them.

Their OS has design flaws. If your car exploded randomly, whose fault would that be? MS definitely can be held accoutable for recent events, Blaster in particular.

I would like to see any one or group of people in this room do a better job!

How is this relevant to anything?

And yes, if Apple had a better marketshare, they would be attacked as well. If you don't believe that you need some serious help. [/B]

They would be attacked *more*, but it wouldn't be nearly as bad. Microsoft themselves have stated that they can do better with their security, hence their Secure Computing Initative. Apparently, Longhorn will be a complete OS redesign to hopefully address these flaws.

[patrick0brien]

Originally posted by skychum
I heard on a radio report that Apple was "moving it's development of... OS X to Taiwan.", but an extensive web search reveals nothing to support this claim, so you can forget about your stupid steak.

-skychum

Careful there, getting awful close to sounding like insulting - and you don't want to go there.

Originally posted by dcb
The point is this. There is no such thing as 100% secure. If someone wants to do something, they will find a way to do it! Users have to take a little responsibility to protect themselves...it is that simple. As someone said earlier, OSX has patches too.

The problem Microsoft has is that they have a target painted on their back. And on top of that, they have to concern themselves with compatibility, ease of use, appearance and so on. If Apple had to worry about making its OS compatible with as many 3rd party applications as Microsoft, they would be challenged as well.


And why is Microsoft responsible for people who committ crimes? That is like saying it is the airlines fault for 9/11. Remember, these computer terrorists are planning their attacks...Microsoft is doing their best to stay ahead of them.

I would like to see any one or group of people in this room do a better job!

And yes, if Apple had a better marketshare, they would be attacked as well. If you don't believe that you need some serious help.

-dcb

I agree. Nobody said OS X is invulnerable, however, it is better designed for security - and that's the point. Windows is like parking a car with doors unlocked and keys in the ignition. The ports are open by default.

OS X is that same car, doors locked. You can break in and steal it if you reeeeeeeeeeeally wanted to, but that other ulocked car with the key in it is so much more tempting.

It's not just a numbers game being that Windows has 80% of the install base, but admittedly, that is one factor. The other one is that it's actuall vulnerable out-of box.

Yes, you can secure it, I do it all the time. And that's the problem - I don't like doing it. It's like holding a car key in 'start' for five minutes, waiting for the engine to catch, when all I want to do is start 'er up and go.

When I use a computer, for 10 minutes, I want 10 minutes of work out of it. I do not want to use 10 minutes to get 5 minutes of work out of it.

Additionally, people like you and I have the skills, experience and acumen to stay on top of managing Windows to keep it secure, but the average shmo with a coffee mug in the CD tray doesn't.

So there he sits, oblivious to the inherent insecurity, let alone know how to accomplish security. And that's the point.

None of this post is a dig, I'm just having a learned conversation.

[dcb]

"None of this post is a dig, I'm just having a learned conversation."
______________

I appreciate that.
______________


Their OS has design flaws. If your car exploded randomly, whose fault would that be? MS definitely can be held accoutable for recent events, Blaster in particular.
______________
I don't get your rational. So you are saying that if someone found a way to exploit osx and spread a virus, Steve Jobs and Apple should be held responsible? Once again, there is no such thing as a 100% flawless system.
______________


Direct X, 5 ports etc...useability, ecommerce, interactive websites, etc.

And we will all have to disagree on the numbers issue! If I wanted to hurt as many people as possible, I would definately go for the highest ROI.

[besson3c]

I don't get your rational. So you are saying that if someone found a way to exploit osx and spread a virus, Steve Jobs and Apple should be held responsible? Once again, there is no such thing as a 100% flawless system.


Of course there is no such thing as a flawless system. The point is not that people are breaking into Windows, the point is that the exploits used are exploits of completely retarded security holes which should have never existed.

Do you not find it the slightest bit troublesome that you can have your CD-ROM tray ejected just by going to a webpage within Windows? Think about that.

Buffer overruns and such can be attributed to a simple bug. The aforementioned is evidence of a fundimental design flaw.

[patrick0brien]

Originally posted by dcb
I don't get your rational. So you are saying that if someone found a way to exploit osx and spread a virus, Steve Jobs and Apple should be held responsible? Once again, there is no such thing as a 100% flawless system.

-dcb

If this is asked of me, no, that door doesn't swing that way. We're into the legal realm of negligence.

If Bill's unlocked car is stolen, and he goes to the judge about it, the judge will most likely kick him out of the courtroom for wasting the court's time for not doing everything he could to secure the car.

If Steve's locked car is stolen, the judge would likely persue the matter due to the fact that there was a security system circumvented to steal it.

This is, of course a vast simplification of the judicial process, but it's accurate.

Originally posted by dcb
And we will all have to disagree on the numbers issue! If I wanted to hurt as many people as possible, I would definately go for the highest ROI.

I'm not sure anybody's disagreeing with this fact. But they aren't letting that be the only factor talked about, simply because it isn't the only factor.

What pains me is that logically the largest and richest fortress would also have the highest concentration on security at the battlements. But Microsoft does quite the opposite.

[dcb]

Besson,

For someone who has nothing but disdain and hate for microsoft and Mr. Gates, you sure do have a lot of confidence in their ability to be perfect. As I was told when I had complaints about Apple, Spit happens, and Apple will make it right if it is their fault. Same with Microsoft. You make it sound like they intentionally create holes...this is not true. Mr. Gates is business saavy, and it wouldn't be prudent to purposely allow for seedy computer geeks to hack there way into his empire!

It is so ridiculous to blame Microsoft and state or imply that they are allowing this to happen for some deep dark reason. It is ridiculous to call them incompetent when they are the leading OS in the world! It would be just as ridiculous for me to say that Apple is responsible for the viruses so they can gain a better marketshare. But which statement is more plausible:

Microsoft is purposely allowing security holes so they can lose customers.

or

Apple is attacking microsoft products so they can have a bigger and better market share.

My point is - unscrupulous geeks - terrorists are attacking the world by spreading computer viruses. It is not microsofts fault. They don't control these people. Despite what you think, if you leave your car door open with the engine running and someone steals it...it isn't your fault. It is the criminals fault.

[dcb]

Originally posted by patrick0brien
-dcb

If this is asked of me, no, that door doesn't swing that way. We're into the legal realm of negligence.

If Bill's unlocked car is stolen, and he goes to the judge about it, the judge will most likely kick him out of the courtroom for wasting the court's time for not doing everything he could to secure the car.

If Steve's locked car is stolen, the judge would likely persue the matter due to the fact that there was a security system circumvented to steal it.

This is, of course a vast simplification of the judicial process, but it's accurate.

Sorry, but stealing is stealing in the eyes of the law, so if the door was open and the car was running, they guy or gal who took it is still a criminal and will still be prosecuted!

Furthermore, we are talking about anticipation. MS has to anticipate what these security holes are going to be. As users, we have to anticipate what problems we might face (ie virus protection).


Originally posted by patrick0brien
-I'm not sure anybody's disagreeing with this fact. But they aren't letting that be the only factor talked about, simply because it isn't the only factor.

Oddly, I agree with you, but it is the biggest and most compelling factor!

Originally posted by patrick0brien
-What pains me is that logically the largest and richest fortress would also have the highest concentration on security at the battlements. But Microsoft does quite the opposite.

Perhaps you can think of it like this...the biggest and the baddest will face the most attacks. If you beat number one, you accomplish something, if you beat number two...your just number two. So it is a never ending battle all across for MS, they have to deal with so many more factors than Apple.

Oh, and thanks to both of you, I needed a good conversation...but it is officially the weekend (nice and long one at that) and I think I will enjoy it. You guys do the same.

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by dcb
Sorry, but stealing is stealing in the eyes of the law, so if the door was open and the car was running, they guy or gal who took it is still a criminal and will still be prosecuted!

Yes, but...

Many states have adopted what are called 'stupidity' laws that allow the state to go after someone who costs the state money. If I left my car unlock and running with the keys in the ignition, and it was stolen, yes, the thieves would be prosecuted (if caught), but I might also face fines from the court to cover their expense because I was negligent at protecting my property.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by dcb
Sorry, but stealing is stealing in the eyes of the law, so if the door was open and the car was running, they guy or gal who took it is still a criminal and will still be prosecuted!

Except that the "criminal" is a mindless, self-replicating worm.

If I sold you a house in a bad neighborhood as being more secure than ever before, but anyone could open your side door at any time, wouldn't I be responsible for that as much as anyone who walked in and walked out with your stuffthe first week you lived there?

The whole problem has less to do with Microsoft being number one in marketshare and more to do with them being dead last in security.

Matter of fact, Windows is dead last in quite a few categories (most) that don't have to do with marketshare... what's the definition of a monopoly again?

[SiliconAddict]

Originally posted by xpormac
ah come on man, if the people that wrote windows were incompetent, do you think it would have as much support as it does now? Lets see you write an OS that can support millions of hardware items. I'm sure it will be so much better than these incompetent people's work :rolleyes:

BS. Sorry but I have to call BS on this one. Hardware support doesn't have a thing to do with OS and security. It has to do with drivers and their reliability. I'm sitting with a compiled list of Service Pack 1 - 4 sitting on my computer in excel format. I've been looking over the list the past few weeks and have seen NOTHING pertaining to security holes in drivers. Its always something internal to MS such as a buffer overrun in X component of Windows or a security hole in X internal app of Windows. Never a driver or a hardware device driver. The closest thing I’ve seen so far is a buff overrun in Direct X that is closely tied to hardware but even then its still a MS OS component that is predominantly used as an API interface for gaming.(Another pet peeve of mine. I had to update my computers in the office I work because of a damn gaming API. Do we use direct X?!?! Nope. But we have to update because of this hole.)
The driver support that occurs in windows is because of that 97.5% market share. Hardware manufactures want their stuff to be MS logoified so they have to pass a certain criteria for windows logo certification to be added to the driver pool on the default install of Windows. And even then some don't make the grade simply because they have to pick and choose what is going to be supported out of the box. Less the driver.cab file takes up too much space on the install CD. Remember this. Hardware manufactures support hardware. Microsoft usually supports technologies. So MS may add BlueTooth support to Windows XP but its the hardware manufacturer's responsibility to get those drivers out.

As for your comment on writing an OS. Heh. He could probably write that OS if he to has the chance to recycled a certain percentage of code from OS to OS. This RPC hole that has been exploited with Blaster applies to NT4-2K-XP-2003. Which basically means they recycled code. No ground up rewrite to make it secure. Incompetent? No. Sloppy and rushed to market to make quarterly sales figures so Billy Boy can look good to the shareholders? Heck yes. Again. Microsoft is a marketing company that just happens to make software. They can market the crap out of it but at the end of the day what makes and keeps their monopoly is inertia, marketing, and FUD, along with some sleazy (Yet remarkably successful) business practices but that’s another rant.

"Supposedly" (Notice the quotes) Longhorn is literally being written from the ground up. If this is the case then I better not see a single security hole that applies to NT, 2K, XP, 2003, AND Longhorn. If this does occur it basically tells me they did more recycling and who know how many other holes are there waiting. 2005 will be the year we find out how much BS Longhorn is. Everything I’ve seen, read suggests that they are focusing more on security but we will find out if this IS the case in 2005. I believe this is the reason for the purchase of VirtualPC. MS is making an effort to restructure windows in a secure method. The problem is the Windows does utilize numerous “holes” in its OS to allow some functionality to occur. This came to light at the MS monopoly hearings year before last. They basically stated they couldn’t release the source because of security by obscurity in windows. The way they may be getting around this in Longhorn is revamping Windows literally from the ground up and using VPC to run legacy apps in a sandboxed session of Windows. Isolating it from the rest of the system while still maintaining backwards software compatibility. Again 2005 is going to be the year we either see MS get its act together or get flushed like so much garbage.

PS- There is even rumors of MS developing its own version of Antivirus software that may ship with windows out of the box. This could be big if true. One of the biggest problems on windows with viruses is that there are a lot of users that just don’t have AV software installed at all. This could solve that problem but you can bet your butt MS is going to charge a monthly cost to keep those defs up to date.

[SiliconAddict]

Originally posted by dcb
The point is this. There is no such thing as 100% secure. If someone wants to do something, they will find a way to do it! Users have to take a little responsibility to protect themselves...it is that simple. As someone said earlier, OSX has patches too.


Here's the dilemma that needs to be determined on the legal front. i.e. Someone with some serious bank needs to take MS to court over their OS. Lic agreement be danged.

There is something called due care. It doesn’t matter if you are in the car manufacturing business, the health care industry, or the software industry. In any industry you are expected to make a good effort to make sure your product is defect free as possible to avoid disasters. Do you think they put out a drug into the market without testing the living crap out of it? Do you think Ford doesn’t test the crap out of their cars to make sure there aren’t any defects that could cause a loss of life? (Or more important to them a massive lawsuit?)
The question needs to be asked: Does Microsoft take due care to make sure their OS is as bug free as possible when it ships?
Considering the fact that within something like 3 weeks of Windows Server 2003 being shipped a bug was found and since that time plenty of others have been found that affect not only 2003 but the previous incarnations of NT IMHO I would say not a chance in heck.
No one has ever called an OS perfect. Its called being human. Human in -> Human screwups out. That’s life. But when dealing with MS its not as simple as shrugging your shoulders and saying **** happens. **** happening once, twice, three times sure. **** happening 2557 times (Read my signature.) isn’t **** happening its gross negligence IMHO of course. :p Last I heard Windows 2000 has 10 MILLION lines of code. Even after all this time does anyone here actually believe MS is going back over this code with a fine tooth comb? Waste of time and man power to them. They are moving forward with Longhorn and dealing with previous “supported” OS’s on a case by case basis. I say supported because 98 and older (And soon ME.) OS’s are no longer supported. Any holes in these OS’s are going to be left there. You will be expected to upgrade to take advantage of additional security. Someone told me, and I can’t verify this, that there is a class action lawsuit against MS for discontinuing support for Win95. Believe it or not there are still a lot of 95 users out there. MS has all but thrown them by the wayside. Security patches in 95? Ya right.
Due care? To MS their reply is.....upgrade.

[bobindashadows]

Originally posted by SiliconAddict
Here's the dilemma that needs to be determined on the legal front. i.e. Someone with some serious bank needs to take MS to court over their OS. Lic agreement be danged.

There is something called due care. It doesn’t matter if you are in the car manufacturing business, the health care industry, or the software industry. In any industry you are expected to make a good effort to make sure your product is defect free as possible to avoid disasters. Do you think they put out a drug into the market without testing the living crap out of it? Do you think Ford doesn’t test the crap out of their cars to make sure there aren’t any defects that could cause a loss of life? (Or more important to them a massive lawsuit?)
The question needs to be asked: Does Microsoft take due care to make sure their OS is as bug free as possible when it ships?
Considering the fact that within something like 3 weeks of Windows Server 2003 being shipped a bug was found and since that time plenty of others have been found that affect not only 2003 but the previous incarnations of NT IMHO I would say not a chance in heck.
No one has ever called an OS perfect. Its called being human. Human in -> Human screwups out. That’s life. But when dealing with MS its not as simple as shrugging your shoulders and saying **** happens. **** happening once, twice, three times sure. **** happening 2557 times (Read my signature.) isn’t **** happening its gross negligence IMHO of course. :p Last I heard Windows 2000 has 10 MILLION lines of code. Even after all this time does anyone here actually believe MS is going back over this code with a fine tooth comb? Waste of time and man power to them. They are moving forward with Longhorn and dealing with previous “supported” OS’s on a case by case basis. I say supported because 98 and older (And soon ME.) OS’s are no longer supported. Any holes in these OS’s are going to be left there. You will be expected to upgrade to take advantage of additional security. Someone told me, and I can’t verify this, that there is a class action lawsuit against MS for discontinuing support for Win95. Believe it or not there are still a lot of 95 users out there. MS has all but thrown them by the wayside. Security patches in 95? Ya right.
Due care? To MS their reply is.....upgrade.

Interesting post overall... to be honest I went to quote halfway through it though. It's funny you chose "Ford" - when Ford Explorers are still killing people, including a friend of our family for 10 years.

[F/reW/re]

Originally posted by Stike
Well, that is the case if they KNOW that they have a CHOICE. But if you go to a local comp store, all you will see are PCs with Win preinstalled... so our frustrated user leaves a *sigh* and tries to cope with M$ crap...
So you want the PC's to run Linux or MacOSX? Windows is a much better OS than Linux for most people!

I say Apple are the bad guys. They're the reason Windows is all over the place. Give us OSX for Intel/AMD, then people will have a choise!

I don't want no Apple HW that costs me twice as much as a similar Wintelbox.

[bobindashadows]

Originally posted by F/reW/re
So you want the PC's to run Linux or MacOSX? Windows is a much better OS than Linux for most people!

I say Apple are the bad guys. They're the reason Windows is all over the place. Give us OSX for Intel/AMD, then people will have a choise!

No. Because Apple isn't about giving you a good computer, it's about being a business. Cool stuff is a nice perk, because APple has cool employees. Either you can buy a current mac, get an older one off eBay, or build a relatively crappy clone. Otherwise, you're S.O.L. because as long as Apple wants to sell hardware, it'll sell PowerPC hardware.

To be honest, I'm getting sick of people whining.

[SiliconAddict]

Originally posted by skychum
Didn't Apple move production of OSX overseas to Taiwan? Yeah, they did. So, since it is coded by asians, you can be assured OSX is far superior.

Yep because its been proven that homo sapiens from Asia have a higher brain density then those of North American so they obviously are smarter and can code better *points to his tongue in cheek*

Give me a break. BSD (Look up what it stands for and then tell me it was developed in Asia.) which Darwin is based on is a offshoot of Unix which was developed here in the US. Considering the fact that Darwin is open source it could be argued that there is no one country that can lay 100% claim to its development.

http://developer.apple.com/darwin/projects/darwin/faq.html


Q. Are outside developers contributing to Darwin?

A. Very much so. In fact, most of the code in Darwin comes from "upstream" sources-the primary organizations that maintain open source code-with very little Apple-only development. However, we do make suggestions to those organizations. For example, when we need to change something in Apache, we work directly with the Apache Software Foundation (ASF). This means that changes often get incorporated into the ASF tree first, then flow "downstream" to the Mac OS X branch (and to other companies who use Apache). In that context, most Darwin development happens outside of Apple, but Apple is still involved, which we think is the right way to go about it.
However, several Darwin-related projects that originated at Apple-in particular, the kernel and drivers-are being developed primarily by Apple engineers. As our community grows and external participants become more comfortable with the system, we expect an increasing amount of this activity to be performed outside of Apple. In fact, participation in the Darwin mailing lists is higher than it has ever been, and we take that as a good sign that more and more people are learning about and contributing to the system.


*in the voice of Apu from the Simpsons* Thank you come again!

PS- Is it just me or is this thread starting into a death spiral?

[SiliconAddict]

Originally posted by bobindashadows
Interesting post overall... to be honest I went to quote halfway through it though. It's funny you chose "Ford" - when Ford Explorers are still killing people, including a friend of our family for 10 years.

:o
You know I was thinking just that while I was writing it. Ford doesn't have the greatest track record when it comes to safety. Maybe a better example would be Firestone. (I think it was Firestone.) You know all those defective tires and the recall it put out a few years back. Did they take due care when developing and making those tires? At least they did a recall to take them off the market ASAP. Imagine if MS was forced to refund or replace all those Win95 systems (Hardware requirements aside.) with Longhorn because "Its just not safe"

[dcb]

Originally posted by Snowy_River
Yes, but...

Many states have adopted what are called 'stupidity' laws that allow the state to go after someone who costs the state money. If I left my car unlock and running with the keys in the ignition, and it was stolen, yes, the thieves would be prosecuted (if caught), but I might also face fines from the court to cover their expense because I was negligent at protecting my property.


Perhaps there are cases for "habitually" stupid people, who have had their vehicle (for example) stolen a number of times due to their negligece...but theft is theft and guess what...the person who stole the vehicle will still go to jail! But I seriously, SERIOOUSLY doubt that any state would ever prosecute a victim...whether they are stupid or not!

[dcb]

Originally posted by SiliconAddict
:o
You know I was thinking just that while I was writing it. Ford doesn't have the greatest track record when it comes to safety. Maybe a better example would be Firestone. (I think it was Firestone.) You know all those defective tires and the recall it put out a few years back. Did they take due care when developing and making those tires? At least they did a recall to take them off the market ASAP. Imagine if MS was forced to refund or replace all those Win95 systems (Hardware requirements aside.) with Longhorn because "Its just not safe"

Neither does Apple! What about faulty power cables that aren't only faulty, but are a serious safety hazard. Where is the due DILEGENCE (Correct Term) there? Even worst. appple won't even admit to thje problem! MS has 3rd parties attacking it's OS, Apple is threatening peoples lives with faulty power cords. MS provides patches so consumers can avoid viruses...Apple has to be taken to court so their hardware won't Kill people!

[dcb]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Except that the "criminal" is a mindless, self-replicating worm.

If I sold you a house in a bad neighborhood as being more secure than ever before, but anyone could open your side door at any time, wouldn't I be responsible for that as much as anyone who walked in and walked out with your stuffthe first week you lived there?

The whole problem has less to do with Microsoft being number one in marketshare and more to do with them being dead last in security.

Matter of fact, Windows is dead last in quite a few categories (most) that don't have to do with marketshare... what's the definition of a monopoly again?

1. The criminal is not the worm...it is the terrorist that created it.

2. YOu biught the house. You didn't fix the side door. Not your fault (with the exception of stupidity) and it is not the person's fault who sold it to you...after all didn't that person tell you to "patch" it up?

3. What is MS dead last in?

[bobindashadows]

Originally posted by dcb
You biught the house. You didn't fix the side door. Not your fault (with the exception of stupidity) and it is not the person's fault who sold it to you...after all didn't that person tell you to "patch" it up?


Ooh, but you forgot one thing in this little analogy. The people who sold you the house did not make enough of an effort to tell the owner that unless they want to be robbed, they have to fix the door. Sure, if you saw the door you'd know that it needed to be fixed, but what if the door was hidden to the person who bought the house, and only the burglar knew about it? Do you think they should have known that they bought an OS with an open door? Further, do you think they should have been informed that the door was open and had a hole in it anybody could crawl though? Because not every person running XP (or any other affected system) knew about that hole.

[besson3c]

Originally posted by dcb
1. The criminal is not the worm...it is the terrorist that created it.

The criminals are also the companies that allow dumb flaws like this exist. Okay, maybe "criminal" is a little extreme, but if you were to buy a new car and it were to explode on the way home, you can bet on being able to sue. You shell out that kind of dough because you expect your car not to explode. This is gross neglect, not just an honest mistake (at least according to the legal systems of the USA and Canada).

There was absolutely no excuse for Blaster to exist. I don't care if MS produced the patch the day after XP was released. You don't release an OS with ports turned on by default which don't need to be.

2. YOu biught the house. You didn't fix the side door. Not your fault (with the exception of stupidity) and it is not the person's fault who sold it to you...after all didn't that person tell you to "patch" it up?

Good analogy. Now, suppose you sold the house to somebody who didn't know anything about buying houses (i.e. computer illiterate people), and instead of just requiring the door to be fixed, it required over 40 critical updates? Most importantly, suppose those updates could be argued to be a product of gross neglect...

3. What is MS dead last in?

I think the question here is what *isn't* MS dead last in?

The answer is:

- consoles
- office programs (arguably because it is difficult for competition to exist)
- browsers (see above)
- mice
- developer tools? (I don't know for sure, I'm not a developer)
- remote desktop administration (which is a little unfair since remote Unix administration is generally done via the command line)
- mousepads
- paper clip assistants
- wizards
- marketshare

[SiliconAddict]

Originally posted by dcb
Neither does Apple! What about faulty power cables that aren't only faulty, but are a serious safety hazard. Where is the due DILEGENCE (Correct Term) there? Even worst. appple won't even admit to thje problem! MS has 3rd parties attacking it's OS, Apple is threatening peoples lives with faulty power cords. MS provides patches so consumers can avoid viruses...Apple has to be taken to court so their hardware won't Kill people!

First off dcb take a deep breath and calm down.
Second.


Legal terms search (http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com/dictionary.html)
due care
: the care that an ordinarily reasonable and prudent person would use under the same or similar circumstances
(called also ordinary care, reasonable care)
(see also due diligence)
(compare fault negligence)

It’s a legit term not 100% accurate but close enough for the purposes of this discussion. Stop nitpicking.

Third. How widespread is this problem? Is this a common problem in Macs? Has it been in multiple version of its hardware? I know next to nothing about previous version of Mac hardware and honestly that's beyond the scope of what we are talking here. We are talking OS. MS doesn't do computer hardware so its difficult to blame then for something they don't make. I would agree if this is a widespread problem then Apple should do something about it. I remember the batteries that were in a specific model of Mac laptops that has the possibility to burst into flames. If memory serves Apple did a recall on that one.
My examples were not to be taken totally literally. They are meant to point out that in any given industry you are expected to do “due diligence” on your product to the point that it should be reasonably safe of defects. Ya I’m basically spouting at this point because I’m not a lawyer. I can ask tomorrow because I work in an insurance brokerage company that lives/eats/breaths risk assessment. I’d be very much interested in seeing if there are ANY laws that pertain to quality of software. I very much doubt it. Otherwise MS would have been screwed years ago.

[patrick0brien]

Originally posted by dcb
Sorry, but stealing is stealing in the eyes of the law, so if the door was open and the car was running, they guy or gal who took it is still a criminal and will still be prosecuted!

-dcb

Y'know what? You're right. Bad example. It's too muddy to be a good one. Yes, the theives (virus writers) would be prosecuted, but the owner of the car would probably not be covered by insurance on the loss due to the Negligence Clause , and perhaps be the suspect of an investigation into Insurance Fraud.

[dcb]

Originally posted by SiliconAddict
First off dcb take a deep breath and calm down.
Second.


It’s a legit term not 100% accurate but close enough for the purposes of this discussion. Stop nitpicking.

DCB is very calm...quite enjoying this discussion as a matter of fact

Originally posted by SiliconAddict
Third. How widespread is this problem? Is this a common problem in Macs? Has it been in multiple version of its hardware?

http://www.apple-power-adapter-complaints.com/

That is not to mention a bevy of other issues that I won't get into to bog down this thread! But this is very relevant. This discussion has to do with the lesser of two evils, Apple or Microsoft. Understandably (but not necessarily justifiably), this discussion and this forum is Apple biased..we are discussing company accountability as well as OS and Apple has it's shortcomings too. There is a difference though...Apple does NOT admit to it's shortcomings...MS, well maybe they don't either, but at least MS recognizes them.

Back to the direct topic.

There have been a lot of car anologies, so I will keep with the tradition. You buy a vehicle knowing that there is going to be maintenence involoved. Nonetheless, you don't change your oil, check your fluids, etc. When you blow an engine...whose fault is that? Even if the buyer didn't know that there is maintenence involoved, the manufacturer has maintenence information in the book. MS is even BETTER at letting people know that there is maintenence involoved. A ballon pops up and basically says UPDATE ME! Click Here, Update Me! What more can a company do?


Who all of a sudden proclaimed that a computer was a plug in play system with no maintenence? HOw many times do you repair permissions, use mac janitor, etc? That is basic maintenence, and prevents your OS from crashing...right?

[dcb]

Originally posted by bobindashadows
Ooh, but you forgot one thing in this little analogy. The people who sold you the house did not make enough of an effort to tell the owner that unless they want to be robbed, they have to fix the door. Sure, if you saw the door you'd know that it needed to be fixed, but what if the door was hidden to the person who bought the house, and only the burglar knew about it? Do you think they should have known that they bought an OS with an open door? Further, do you think they should have been informed that the door was open and had a hole in it anybody could crawl though? Because not every person running XP (or any other affected system) knew about that hole.

That's what an inspector is for. ie Third party vendor...much like norton, symantec, other virus protection programs. Not to mention the fact that MS users were told and repeatedly reminded to update their computers.

[bobindashadows]

Originally posted by dcb
That's what an inspector is for. ie Third party vendor...much like norton, symantec, other virus protection programs. Not to mention the fact that MS users were told and repeatedly reminded to update their computers.

Do you honestly think every MS user knew?

And are you suggesting that every person must hire an inspector or they are responsible for any problems that arise? What if the person can't afford an inspector? Are they screwed?

[dcb]

Originally posted by bobindashadows
And are you suggesting that every person must hire an inspector or they are responsible for any problems that arise? What if the person can't afford an inspector? Are they screwed?

It was an analogy tying in with your last post...you purchase a home, the bank usually requires an inspection and it is always a good ideal!

A computer - isn't it always a good idea to have virus protection? As for cost, there are free virus scan engines on the web. You can use free email services such as Hotmail or yahoo that scan for viruses and so on.


Do you honestly think every MS user knew?

No, I don't. But ignorance is no excuse!

[patrick0brien]

Originally posted by dcb
No, I don't. But ignorance is no excuse!

-dcb

Agreed. It may not be an excuse, but it's a reality.

I feel this conversation is beginning to go back on itself now, are we actually getting anywhere anymore? Or has the law of diminishing returns landed on this thread?