On 10/10/2011 2:07 PM, x=usr(1536) wrote:
On 10/10/11 11:59 AM, John Smith wrote:
On 10/10/2011 4:21 AM, Joe from Kokomo wrote:
On 10/10/2011 3:13 AM, Alan Baker wrote:

Or it could be what I've observed year after year: someone who switches
to the Mac almost never switches back to the PC.

Have you also considered economics? Macs ain't cheap...and once people
have all that Mac money invested, they might be reluctant to change.

I had my first Apple II back in 1981. Loved it! Then along came the Mac
-- closed architecture, NO expansion slots.

IBM PCs then came on the scene with -- whadda ya know -- open
architecture and expansion slots, an idea that Apple abandoned and IBM
adopted.

To this very day, IBM has TONS more ham radio, astronomy and science
software, expansion cards and applications than the Mac.

If you like a toaster/appliance, the Mac is just fine.

Valid point(s.)

Except that some of them are not entirely correct.

I'll agree that Apple's hardware isn't cheap in comparison to
Windows-based PCs, but you're getting a fast, stable OS that is pretty
much tailored to run on the hardware - and while the hardware uses much
the same componentry as you'll find in any x64-based PC, the hardware
has been designed to be supportive of the OS, not the other way around.
This leads to a longer useful life of the hardware even once it's been
relegated to a secondary post-replacement role.

Apple has not abandoned the open architecture idea: it lives on in the
desktop machines outside of the iMac range. Last time I opened mine up,
there were slots. Lots of them, and compatible with various flavours of
PCI, SATA, and other standard architectures, as it happens. Yes, iMacs
are sealed units (effectively, though there are still upgrades that can
be performed on them), but so are the all-in-one PCs from major
manufacturers such as Dell.

As for the Windows platform having more software available for any
purpose (not just the ones mentioned): well, yeah. It does. But how
many variations on a theme are actually useful? I can't think of a time
where it's been better to have multiple software packages installed that
all do about the same thing rather than one that just does it well.

Also note that OS X can build and run a large chunk of the software
available for *nix systems as well (see: Macports, Darwinports,
Homebrew, and other port managers), so tools and applications already in
use on other platforms can typically be installed and used on a Mac.
End result: more software choice.

Please don't take away from this that I'm a Mac zealot (I'm really a
UNIX bigot) - it's just tedious to hear the same things said about the
platform over and over that aren't factually-accurate.

- x.

You confuse "stable" with being "limited like a child."

You simply can' screw up a MAC like you can a PC because it doesn't
allow it ... the PC comes, out of the box, WIDE OPEN!

Windows 7 is full of a bunch of nag screens now, asking for rights to
install a driver, right to install software, rights to make changes to
the registry, etc. ... but morons still don't know what this means and
allows it.

Truth is, unless you tell a PC to allow a virus/malware, it is NOT going
to do it and is just at "stable" (your words) as a MAC. This assuming
you have allowed microsoft to automatically update drivers, software and
malware/virus protection -- things which the MAC does without ever
giving you opportunity to ignore/stop/refuse ...

You definition of "stable" means, to me, "stopping morons from
compromising their systems."

As I say, PC don't have a "mommy and daddy" protecting you, you will get
asked a simple question, about allowing the changes ... if you really
don't understand the changes you are allowing, you might not wanna'
allow them ...

Basically, linux/UNIX and mainframes are the same, totally open ... I
can't count the linux machines I have seen compromised which the owners
are telling me "linux doesn't get viruses like windows", and, basically,
they are correct -- IT IS THEM WHO HAVE ALLOWED IT!

And, of course, on a main frame you have a system administrator
protecting you and making decisions for you, and his/her FIRST decision
will be to NOT ALLOW YOU TO MAKE CHANGES ... roflol

On a PC, you are GOD ... pure and simple, with the power of GOD comes
great responsibility ... makes sure you have the wisdom to be a GOD
before proceeding ... GODS don't make mistakes, yanno'? grin

Regards,
JS

On 10/10/11 3:01 PM, John Smith wrote:

You confuse "stable" with being "limited like a child."

Nope. Please tell me where I made that comparison; it's all yours.

You simply can' screw up a MAC like you can a PC because it doesn't
allow it ... the PC comes, out of the box, WIDE OPEN!

Disagreed. The threat models are different, but I will concede that OS
X' security track record has generally been better than Windows', even
taking into account that there have been four major versions of Windows
released in parallel with the history of OS X.

Windows 7 is full of a bunch of nag screens now, asking for rights to
install a driver, right to install software, rights to make changes to
the registry, etc. ... but morons still don't know what this means and
allows it.

Big deal; it's the same on any *nix-based OS (and I'm including OS X in
that for the sake of the argument). Let an idiot allow malware to do
something in God Mode and it's just as bad on any platform.

Truth is, unless you tell a PC to allow a virus/malware, it is NOT going
to do it and is just at "stable" (your words) as a MAC.

Wrong. There have been plenty of system-level vulnerabilities in
Windows that have allowed exactly the kinds of scenarios you're
proposing here take place *without* user intervention.

Also, don't confuse 'security' with 'stability'. Two different things,
though one may occasionally depend on the other.

This assuming
you have allowed microsoft to automatically update drivers, software and
malware/virus protection -- things which the MAC does without ever
giving you opportunity to ignore/stop/refuse ...

Automatic Updates usually address the worm o' the week *after* the fact.
That's not to say that they're never proactive about problems, but
usually the patch comes in for the major problem after it's hit CNN.

By the way, you can refuse updates on the Mac (which incidentally is not
an acronym, so no need to wear out the caps lock key typing it in block
capitals). You may not know how to do that, but your ignorance of the
OS X GUI does not mean that your assertion is in any way, shape, or form
correct. Again.

You definition of "stable" means, to me, "stopping morons from
compromising their systems."

I don't believe that I ever provided you with my definition of stability
in this context beyond the BSOD, so you're making an assumption there
again. Nice try, though.

As I say, PC don't have a "mommy and daddy" protecting you, you will get
asked a simple question, about allowing the changes ... if you really
don't understand the changes you are allowing, you might not wanna'
allow them ...

Welcome to OS X - or pretty much every other *nix variant out there.

Basically, linux/UNIX and mainframes are the same, totally open ... I
can't count the linux machines I have seen compromised which the owners
are telling me "linux doesn't get viruses like windows", and, basically,
they are correct -- IT IS THEM WHO HAVE ALLOWED IT!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH*deep breath*HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You haven't been trolling for very long, have you? Here's a hint: if
you want to be an effective troll, learn to troll effectively.

Now, giving you the benefit of the doubt, you may just be speaking from
a position of complete ignorance. And that's OK; the world evidently
needs dumb people too, though I've personally found them substantially
less than necessary. However, I would have expected someone capable of
manually poking hex values into memory to be a little more... Savvy.

You clearly have no idea of the difference between a worm, a virus, a
trojan, or an application- or system-level vulnerability. I'll leave
configuration (either at the system or application level) out of this
for now, because I wouldn't want to confuse you any further.

Really, you need to up your game. I'll give you a half-check mark for
trying, though. Effort does count.

And, of course, on a main frame you have a system administrator
protecting you and making decisions for you, and his/her FIRST decision
will be to NOT ALLOW YOU TO MAKE CHANGES ... roflol

Of course you do, and there's no such thing as the 'administrator'
account (local or domain) on a Windows box. Bless your little heart.

On a PC, you are GOD ... pure and simple, with the power of GOD comes
great responsibility ... makes sure you have the wisdom to be a GOD
before proceeding ... GODS don't make mistakes, yanno'? grin

Can I have some of what you're huffing? It's clearly the good ****.

- x.

"x=usr(1536)" wrote in message ...

Basically, linux/UNIX and mainframes are the same, totally open ... I
can't count the linux machines I have seen compromised which the owners
are telling me "linux doesn't get viruses like windows", and, basically,
they are correct -- IT IS THEM WHO HAVE ALLOWED IT!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH*deep breath*HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There has been one particular invasion (a keystroke reader) of a
high-security Unix system in the news lately... that of someone hacking into
the software that runs the Predator drones...

http://www.devilfinder.com/find.php?...really+hacked?
cuhulin

On 10/10/11 5:25 PM, Brenda Ann wrote:

There has been one particular invasion (a keystroke reader) of a
high-security Unix system in the news lately... that of someone hacking
into the software that runs the Predator drones...

Yep, saw that a couple of days ago. Not that it would be impossible to
do this on a *nix system, but could you point me to a link that names
the OS that was infected? So far I haven't seen anything that names it
one way or another.

- x.