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

[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
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

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. 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. 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]

Ummmmm.....

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.

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

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