Mr. Jackson,
I'm commenting on an article that was posted by The Chronicle on March 17th, "The High Cost of Computer Worms" (
http://chronicle.com/colloquylive/2004/03/worm/). The question and answer session contains one query that I feel was not answered well at all.
***
The question, from Lisa L. Spangenberg, UCLA:
"Given that there are no viruses or Trojan horses for the current Macintosh system, OS X 10.3, and given that it is essentially UNIX, and given that the most common applications (Microsoft Office Suite, Adobe applications) work very well on OS X, why don't more institutions adopt Macs and encourage faculty to use them?"
Your response, with my notations:
"Well, first of all, there are viruses and Trojans that afflict MacOS, witness Apple's periodic release of security fixes to counteract them."
This is simply untrue. Not to say that no malicious programs exist, in fact one must concede that someone may be writing one in a dark basement this very moment, but the fact is there have been none publicly recorded that I am aware of that afflict Mac OS X since its introduction many years ago. It's basically unheard of, which in relation to the ongoing crusades on the Windows platform, is as good as no viruses at all.
Apple's security releases are most commonly comprised of updates to underlying UNIX apps and services, such as FTP, Samba, Apache, and such, that in their previous version may have allowed unauthorized privileges to hackers or peers, or contained similar security holes. Frequently a new version is released due to general improvement and not bugs or vulnerability. Also, many of these packages are not even produced by Apple, and in some cases can be freely downloaded and installed individually. Delivering them in these updaters is really a convenience.
Changes to the core OS or critical components are typically reserved for point-point system updates (10.3.x). Some security-related bugs may be addressed with these, but I've not seen any patches to combat specific and well known worms or viruses or what have you in the change-logs.
To conclude, "update" and "security" are not synonymous with "antivirus".
"In the case of Unix, the vulnerabilities are greater -- even in the Mach kernel underlying MacOS -- [...]"
UNIX itself is not an easy blockade to overcome. It is one of the longest standing platforms - a "grandfather" of modern operating systems if you will - and has been well fortified over the years. Given the bare facts, I find it hard to believe that the majority would choose anything Microsoft over this robust character.
"But the small installed base of Macs makes them an unexciting, low-visibility target for the bad guys, and so the weaknesses don't get exploited much. [...] but once again the installed base makes for an uninteresting target. [...] If, as you suggest, suddenly Macs were much more widely used, they'd rapidly become an interesting target, and we'd see more bad-guy action."
Stating the obvious, repeatedly. Any dominating platform will be a bigger target for mischief. Joe Blow OS would get slammed if it boasted over ninety percent market-share. So, isn't this all the more reason to build networks with the underdog's technology? As hard as you may try, you cannot make the Mac platform look as unappealing as Windows in this respect.
"An interesting consequence of this would be a focus on Apple's policy for security updates, which is approximately that after a brief while you have to pay for them. But I digress."
I don't see the basis of this concern regarding security updates. After having paid good money for an operating system, it's only fair that the manufacturer deal with any and all public nuisances at their expense that may prohibit one from using said product to its full extent, within reason, or potentially in the case of virii, using it the product at all. Apple will charge for security updates not before Microsoft charges for service packs. And I too have been known to digress, but usually not in public.
"As to why we don't recommend more Macs anyway, which isn't really what you were asking but what the hey, [...]"
No, I think that has a great deal to do with it. Are you not a representative and chief information officer of the University of Chicago? It falls within this job description, I believe, to determine what information-related technologies are used or not used there. The question encompasses institutions not predominantly using the Mac platform, therefore the question encompasses you.
"[...] there are two vexing and continuing problems: it's becoming harder and harder (and hence more and more expensive) to find qualified Mac technicians and support staff, [...]"
It's becoming harder to find qualified and cheap Mac techies because they're simply not needed in quantity. Hiring a Mac support staff would likely be more cost effective in the long run because less employees would be needed. While interacting in online forums I've seen countless people say that they fix people's PCs at work, then come home to their Mac and relax. Many people welcome the plagues of the Windows world because to them it's job security. Another worm, another dollar.
"[...] and Macs themselves, with a couple of exceptions (such as iMacs and low-end iBooks), remain stubbornly more expensive than their Windows or Linux competitors."
While some models are seemingly expensive, Apple's low end pricing is increasingly competitive these days. Having purchased both PC and Mac hardware I can safely say that you get what you pay for. The age-old luxury car vs economy car analogy is a tried and true representation. Please consider also the total cost of ownership.
***
Far be it from me to tell you how to do your job, but judging by this and other responses from the session, you don't seem quite as in touch with the tech industry as you should be, particularly in the areas of Linux and open source software. This is revealed by lines like "one's kids don't want to install their cool stuff on Linux, since it won't run there...", which is worse than moot, for if it won't run on Linux how do you propose to install it to begin with. Your Apple related responses alone, whether biased or just uneducated, are not becoming of a man in such a position as yourself, Mac user or no.
With these points parried, the initial question remains: why don't more institutions adopt Macs and encourage faculty to use them?
With due respect,
