|
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
 Posted - 06/21/2005 : 12:53:19
|
To all those Mac users out there, this should get you going:
Look at the amount of thought he put into each decision:
quote:
The two life changes came about the same time but had different influences, according to Philips. "Well, I became a Christian in late June after talking to my friend Ted, who's a really smart guy. The switch to Mac was more a result of some pretty intense personal study, looking at web sites that compare Windows and the Mac OS, price comparisons, and stuff like that. I bought an eMac after the [4th of July] holiday to replace my home computer, and I just got a sweet new iBook laptop for work last week." Philips also cited moral reasons for the changes, specifically the fact that millions of people are victimized by Microsoft's poor security, and the company knowingly sells a faulty product.
So, he put a lot more thought into switching computer brands than his conversion to religion.
What does that say about him?
That he's smart for going through such careful checking before buying a Mac, or that he's not smart for converting to religion, and therefore a Mac isn't the best?
So many ways to have fun with this...
Though I will admit that how he picked out his computer at least was the smart way: comparison check first.
|
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
 Posted - 06/21/2005 : 13:59:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by the_ignored
To all those Mac users out there, this should get you going:
Look at the amount of thought he put into each decision:
quote:
The two life changes came about the same time but had different influences, according to Philips. "Well, I became a Christian in late June after talking to my friend Ted, who's a really smart guy. The switch to Mac was more a result of some pretty intense personal study, looking at web sites that compare Windows and the Mac OS, price comparisons, and stuff like that. I bought an eMac after the [4th of July] holiday to replace my home computer, and I just got a sweet new iBook laptop for work last week." Philips also cited moral reasons for the changes, specifically the fact that millions of people are victimized by Microsoft's poor security, and the company knowingly sells a faulty product.
So, he put a lot more thought into switching computer brands than his conversion to religion.
What does that say about him?
That he's smart for going through such careful checking before buying a Mac, or that he's not smart for converting to religion, and therefore a Mac isn't the best?
So many ways to have fun with this...
Though I will admit that how he picked out his computer at least was the smart way: comparison check first.
Major problem with one of his comparisons. Macs have just as many security holes and they (Apple) know it. It's just black hats focus more on Microshaft than Macs because of the larger install base. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
 |
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 06/21/2005 : 16:17:44 [Permalink]
|
Of course. More people using = more people getting fucked.
Personally, I like to experiment. My next attempt will be a Mac. I never truly used one, though I honestly don't buy the Mac propaganda, at all. I won't believe it until I test it, and right now, well, too expensive for my poor budget. And changing from IBM to Intel just sounds wrong. |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
woolytoad
Skeptic Friend
313 Posts |
Posted - 06/21/2005 : 17:00:10 [Permalink]
|
Isn't the article a joke? At least the man has his priorities right.
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Major problem with one of his comparisons. Macs have just as many security holes and they (Apple) know it. It's just black hats focus more on Microshaft than Macs because of the larger install base.
People need to stop spreading this meme. Here's an analogy: Say there are 100 houses in a neighbourhood. 99 of these houses have little in the way of security. The remaining house is built like Fort Knox. What you're suggesting is that Fort Knox is as easy to get into as a regular suburban house and that the Fort Knox house remains safe because there is only one of them. Were they in the majority, they would be robbed successfully more often.
This doesn't make sense.
Install base will surely effect the number of attempted attacks on Windows PCs, but the rate of success is due to it being full of holes. If OS X had the Windows install base, there could be as many attempts, but this doesn't mean that they are going to be successful.
So yes, attempts is proportional to install base. But success rate is inversely proportional to security. And while there are definitely bugs in OS X, they are not obvious like some Windows security holes. Mac OS really is fundamentally more secure. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2005 : 06:46:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by woolytoad
Isn't the article a joke? At least the man has his priorities right.
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Major problem with one of his comparisons. Macs have just as many security holes and they (Apple) know it. It's just black hats focus more on Microshaft than Macs because of the larger install base.
People need to stop spreading this meme. Here's an analogy: Say there are 100 houses in a neighbourhood. 99 of these houses have little in the way of security. The remaining house is built like Fort Knox. What you're suggesting is that Fort Knox is as easy to get into as a regular suburban house and that the Fort Knox house remains safe because there is only one of them. Were they in the majority, they would be robbed successfully more often.
This doesn't make sense.
Install base will surely effect the number of attempted attacks on Windows PCs, but the rate of success is due to it being full of holes. If OS X had the Windows install base, there could be as many attempts, but this doesn't mean that they are going to be successful.
So yes, attempts is proportional to install base. But success rate is inversely proportional to security. And while there are definitely bugs in OS X, they are not obvious like some Windows security holes. Mac OS really is fundamentally more secure.
Sorry, I don't buy into the whole Mac OS is more secure stuff.
My analogy is out of 100 houses, 99 have a certain security system. One has a different security system of equal effectiveness. A great majority of theives will learn about the first security system in an attempt to defeat it rather than the latter.
The more successful and inventive theives will concentrate on the security system of the 99 houses because then they have access to more stuff than if they concentrated on the one house's security system. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
woolytoad
Skeptic Friend
313 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2005 : 08:10:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Sorry, I don't buy into the whole Mac OS is more secure stuff.
I apologise for being off topic again. So I will just post links on why Valiant Dancer is wrong and just say, OS X and other *nix systems are fundamentally more secure than any Windows because they are designed that way. As my OS professor said, Unix was designed to be a multiuser platform with the assumption that you could not trust the user. Windows/DOS was designed to work on a private computer off a network and the networking features are just cobbled on.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/12/16/windowsstyle_security_hell_stalks_mac/
Relevant: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10/22/linux_v_windows_security/
For the record, I was a Windows user for 10+ years until I checked out a Mac a year ago. Not having to run spyware removers and virus scans constantly and put up with inexplicable system degradation has done wonders for my stress levels. Hey! That's almost on topic! |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2005 : 14:18:36 [Permalink]
|
This is my criteria for picking a new computer: Which has the largest game library? PCs win in a landslide.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2005 : 16:31:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
This is my criteria for picking a new computer: Which has the largest game library? PCs win in a landslide.
Wise, art thou. |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 06/23/2005 : 00:42:09 [Permalink]
|
Eh, I don't know from different computers, only if they work or they don't. It's rather like apples (heh) and oranges, I think. Both are good to eat but will attract fruit flies and rot if neglected.
Seems to me that the guy's easily led, or his really-smart-friend Ted is a gifted orator. Or perhaps he converted just to shut Ted the hell up, who can say? Whatever, religions can be adopted or abandoned upon a whim and in the blink on an eye, but computers are expensive.
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 06/23/2005 : 06:50:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by woolytoad
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Sorry, I don't buy into the whole Mac OS is more secure stuff.
I apologise for being off topic again. So I will just post links on why Valiant Dancer is wrong and just say, OS X and other *nix systems are fundamentally more secure than any Windows because they are designed that way. As my OS professor said, Unix was designed to be a multiuser platform with the assumption that you could not trust the user. Windows/DOS was designed to work on a private computer off a network and the networking features are just cobbled on.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/12/16/windowsstyle_security_hell_stalks_mac/
Relevant: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10/22/linux_v_windows_security/
For the record, I was a Windows user for 10+ years until I checked out a Mac a year ago. Not having to run spyware removers and virus scans constantly and put up with inexplicable system degradation has done wonders for my stress levels. Hey! That's almost on topic!
From your own article:
"Windows' widespread (and often unnecessary) use of features such as RPC meanwhile adds vulnerabilities that really need not be there. Linux's design is not vulnerable in the same ways, and no matter how successful it eventually becomes it simply cannot experience attacks to similar levels, inflicting similar levels of damage, to Windows."
Equates the preferred hack method of a dissimilar product to a reason why the preferred product is less inherently vunerable. Equivocation.
I will agree that open source allows security holes to be discovered by a greater number of people most of which have a vested interest in plugging the hole. It does not, however, justify the reasoning that Macs are more secure or refute obscurity aiding security. I also am not making the claim the articles are trying to refute that Windows is more secure or that Apple is less responsive than Microshaft to security holes.
Both operating systems have vunerabilities. The Windows ones are more often exploited. I believe Ricky's analogy sums up the contention I have. There are few companies who have valuable information that use Macs. Therefore, black hats target Windows more often and exploit the security holes faster due to install base, not inherent security properties.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 06/23/2005 : 07:08:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Both operating systems have vunerabilities. The Windows ones are more often exploited. I believe Ricky's analogy sums up the contention I have. There are few companies who have valuable information that use Macs. Therefore, black hats target Windows more often and exploit the security holes faster due to install base, not inherent security properties.
IBM's computers themselves are based on Windows (at least, the ones for less computer-savvy employees, who wouldn't know how to use Unix); the servers, supercomputers and other interesting stuff are based in either Linux and its manifold variations, or IBM's own OS.
The main difference between a Mac and a PC, as far as I know, was the architecture - Macs were RISC, based on IBM's PowerPC RISC microprocessors, while PCs are CISC, based on Intel, AMD et al CISC microprocessors. The main strength of their computers is digital design, as they could render and process image and video information much faster.
Not anymore. Macs are moving to the CISC architecture, Intel-based (apparently they were annoyed with IBM's delay or something, and decided to ditch PowerPC for good). And though they keep babbling about how it'll never work outside their own hardware, hackers are already on their posts. |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
woolytoad
Skeptic Friend
313 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2005 : 00:42:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
"Windows' widespread (and often unnecessary) use of features such as RPC meanwhile adds vulnerabilities that really need not be there. Linux's design is not vulnerable in the same ways, and no matter how successful it eventually becomes it simply cannot experience attacks to similar levels, inflicting similar levels of damage, to Windows."
Equates the preferred hack method of a dissimilar product to a reason why the preferred product is less inherently vulnerable. Equivocation.
Uh, Linux also does RPC as stated in the quote. So does Unix and so does OS X. Windows RPC is more vulnerable due to the way RPC is used and apparently due to its implementation. You'll also note that they mention that RPC is also a vulnerability in Linux (indeed in Unix as well it seems), but it's nowhere near the liability it is in Windows.
quote:
Both operating systems have vulnerabilities.
Of course, no software is perfect.
quote:
The Windows ones are more often exploited.
Some Windows vulnerabilities should never have existed and are too easy to exploit. They are trivial to protect against. Such as opening ports by default and automatically running scripts in emails.
quote:
There are few companies who have valuable information that use Macs.
Well you'd expect that, they are marketed towards graphics/audio/publishing applications and the educational market. This does not really relate to how secure Windows is though. Windows is the de facto standard. |
|
|
|
latsot
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
70 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2005 : 13:33:31 [Permalink]
|
Ah, now we're into some *real* religious wars...
Cheers
r |
|
|
|
latsot
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
70 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2005 : 03:44:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
People need to stop spreading this meme. Here's an analogy: Say there are 100 houses in a neighbourhood. 99 of these houses have little in the way of security. The remaining house is built like Fort Knox. What you're suggesting is that Fort Knox is as easy to get into as a regular suburban house and that the Fort Knox house remains safe because there is only one of them. Were they in the majority, they would be robbed successfully more often.
I think this is a really bad analogy. It makes the assumption that (presumably) Mac security is better than Windows security. While you may think this is self-evident, I'd like to know why you feel so confident.
>Install base will surely effect the number of attempted attacks on
>Windows PCs, but the rate of success is due to it being full of
>holes.
I don't buy this. Crappy security is more easily compromised, to be sure, but rate of success is also proportional to rate of attack. Compensating for all this, which would win?
Security is more complicated than the technology. Making comparisons between, say, windows or mac or unix in terms of how 'good' their 'security' is (sorry for all the apostrophes) is dangerous. WHICH installation of windows (say) are we talking about? Is it appropriately patched? Is it stand-alone? Is it on a network? Does the user know anything about security? What software is being used? How are the users using that software? What is their attitude toward security? Do they do blithering things with passwords? There really isn't a 'typical' installation/user/etc. of any os.
To say one os is more secure than another requires correcting for all these things. Can you do that? I'm sure as hell I can't.
I'm by no means one to defend microsoft, but they are attempting to develop a culture of user responsibility, which is to be commended. Security is always the user's responsibility and vendors that help users to manage their own security are better than those that don't.
With Windows recently, patches are well-announced and updates easy or automatic. I don't know whether mac has anything like this. If it doesn't, I'd say it is doing what ms did in the old days - deny it has problems rather than admitting it does. This is not healthy and is bad for security in general.
>And while there are definitely bugs in OS X, they are not obvious
>like some Windows security holes.
This is a fairly bizarre statement. What do you mean by 'obvious'? Perhaps windows bugs are *obvious* because ms announces and tries to fix them? Perhaps they are obvious because of the install base and because everyone is looking for them. Perhaps they are obvious because of the level of integration of windows software? Or the stupidity of some windows users? Which is it, or is it something else?
> Mac OS really is fundamentally more secure.
This really does sound like a religious statement. As stated throughout this post - what do you base this on? What installations are you talking about? What assumptions do you make on how idiotic users are etc.
>Install base will surely effect the number of attempted attacks on
>Windows PCs, but the rate of success is due to it being full
>of holes.
The success rate per installation, perhaps.
>If OS X had the Windows install base, there could be as many
>attempts, but this doesn't mean that they are going to be successful.
Of course not. Neither does it mean that they are going to fail. This kind of counterfactual is a little pointless.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
