Some interesting stories..

asininity

This is going to get shot down and rightly so but cant resist and it plays favourably to my favourite topics.

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1495591/security-experts-mock-mac-security

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/05/microsoft_rivals_red_hat_canonical_linux/

Enjoy.:j

Leopard

Quote from the first of your two links:

"The show was told that if Macs gain market share there will be a danger that hackers will start having a look under the bonnets of the machines."

That is why many Mac users here (including I) don't like Apple fanatics trying to convert people to the platform. :mad:

sco0ter

This has always been the problem and one almost all Mac owners deny. Windows has an extremely large share of the market and it is more profitable, satisfying for people to hack the most popular OS.

If the tables were turned then it would be the same for Mac users and us windows users would be making the "why are there not many viruses for Windows, Because its more secure" claims. Its not because its securer but because the hackers cant be bothered.

Couple that with microsofts experience with having to continually update and patch a system to stop this and it makes you wonder if the world hacker community all of a sudden turned its attentions to the Mac would they be able to keep up/cope???

robt_2

sco0ter wrote: »

This has always been the problem and one almost all Mac owners deny. Windows has an extremely large share of the market and it is more profitable, satisfying for people to hack the most popular OS.

If the tables were turned then it would be the same for Mac users and us windows users would be making the "why are there not many viruses for Windows, Because its more secure" claims. Its not because its securer but because the hackers cant be bothered.

Couple that with microsofts experience with having to continually update and patch a system to stop this and it makes you wonder if the world hacker community all of a sudden turned its attentions to the Mac would they be able to keep up/cope???

*gets popcorn out* :D

sco0ter

robt wrote: »

*gets popcorn out* :D

:beer:
Im just waiting for the technical "kernal" and "architecture" arguments myself

:rotfl:

asininity

I personally like that MS are finally admitting they're afraid of linux, they're unable to buy it or undercut it! I'd love to see linux gain more market share.

I think the article about macs is very interesting especially about the time it takes apple to patch things/deny theres a flaw.

Marty_J

asininity wrote: »

I think the article about macs is very interesting especially about the time it takes apple to patch things/deny theres a flaw.

The same flaw that existed in the iPhone OS also existed in Windows Mobile and Android, and it was patched by Apple and Google.

It can take Apple a while to issue a patch for something, but as far as I'm aware, none of the security flaws that have been widely publicised were ever actually used to attack Macs, so perhaps Apple know something that we don't.

Two interesting articles about Mac security:

The Unavoidable Malware Myth: Why Apple Won’t Inherit Microsoft’s Malware Crown

Are Macs more Safe than Secure? No.


As for Microsoft considering Linux a rival, that might not be such good news for Linux. 9 out of 10 netbooks are now sold with Windows on them, which is pretty much a direct reversal of the netbook market when it first emerged. Microsoft has deep pockets, and is totally obsessed with market-share to an almost psychotic degree, so it doesn't mind losing money in order to get a bigger slice of a pie-chart. The fact is, Microsoft have undercut Linux, and they will continue to do so if they think Linux is a threat. Linux being free is in some ways its greatest disadvantage; many people are in the position of Oscar Wilde's critic, who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. Microsoft don't compete by making better products, they compete by running the competition out of town, taking their ideas, and then patting themselves on the back for how "innovative" they are.

I don't really think Apple is a competitor to Microsoft either, at least not in the OS arena. Apple competes with Dell, Sony, HP, etc, not Microsoft. If someone wants a £300 computer, they're not going to be buying an Apple, regardless of what OS it runs. You can see Microsoft are well aware of this in the Laptop Hunter ads they've been airing in the States, where they basically try to convince consumers that cheap computers are good enough for them; yet another example of how the price of something, not its value, is what resonates with many people. I'm sure their hardware partners (who make most profit selling high-end systems) really appreciated that.

Microsoft doesn't have to compete on a level playing field with Linux (in the same way it has to with the Zune in regards to the iPod for instance). Most people who buy a computer get one with Windows on it, so as it stands, the ability of Linux to compete with Microsoft is rather limited. It doesn't really matter how much better Linux is, people will buy what they've bought before unless they have a compelling reason to do otherwise. Until we see PC World selling pic'n'mix computers, where you choose your hardware and then add on the cost of whatever OS you want on top, consumers are still going to buy computers with Windows on them. There exists a perception that Windows comes free with a computer (when in actual fact, it's pretty expensive), so many consumers feel that something that is worth £100+, but they got for free, represents better value than something that's actually free (i.e. Linux), so they're loathe to not take advantage of the great deal they got. And those who realise it does cost money don't want to use anything else as they think they might as well use something they've already paid for.

While OEMs are still selling pre-built ready to use systems, Microsoft can keep them all on a tight leash, and the computers are going to come with Windows on them.

superscaper

Marty_J wrote: »

The same flaw that existed in the iPhone OS also existed in Windows Mobile and Android, and it was patched by Apple and Google.

It can take Apple a while to issue a patch for something, but as far as I'm aware, none of the security flaws that have been widely publicised were ever actually used to attack Macs, so perhaps Apple know something that we don't.

Two interesting articles about Mac security:

The Unavoidable Malware Myth: Why Apple Won’t Inherit Microsoft’s Malware Crown

Are Macs more Safe than Secure? No.


As for Microsoft considering Linux a rival, that might not be such good news for Linux. 9 out of 10 netbooks are now sold with Windows on them, which is pretty much a direct reversal of the netbook market when it first emerged. Microsoft has deep pockets, and is totally obsessed with market-share to an almost psychotic degree, so it doesn't mind losing money in order to get a bigger slice of a pie-chart. The fact is, Microsoft have undercut Linux, and they will continue to do so if they think Linux is a threat. They don't compete by making better products, they compete by running the competition out of town.

I don't really think Apple is a competitor to Microsoft either, at least not in the OS arena. Apple competes with Dell, Sony, HP, etc, not Microsoft. If someone wants a £300 computer, they're not going to be buying an Apple, regardless of what OS it runs. You can see Microsoft are well aware of this in the Laptop Hunter ads they've been airing in the States, where they basically try to convince consumers that cheap computers are good enough for them. I'm sure their hardware partners (who make most profit selling high-end systems) really appreciated that.

Microsoft doesn't have to compete on a level playing field with Linux (in the same way it has to with the Zune in regards to the iPod for instance). Most people who buy a computer get one with Windows on it, so as it stands, the ability of Linux to compete with Microsoft is rather limited. It doesn't really matter how much better Linux is, people will buy what they've bought before unless they have a compelling reason to do otherwise. Until we see PC World selling pic'n'mix computers, where you choose your hardware and then add on the cost of whatever OS you want on top, consumers are still going to buy computers with Windows on them. There exists a perception that Windows comes free with a computer (when in actual fact, it's pretty expensive), so many consumers feel that something that is worth £100+, but they got for free, represents better value than something that's actually free (i.e. Linux), so they're loathe to not take advantage of the great deal they got. And those that realise it does cost money don't want to use anything else as they think they might as well use something they've already paid for.

While OEMs are still selling pre-built ready to use systems, Microsoft can keep them all on a tight leash, and the computers are going to come with Windows on them.

And to be honest market shares may or may not shift but it won't completely obliterate one thing or another even if was a truly free market as everyone has different requirements which no one product can fulfill for everybody. That even goes for freeware/open source versus commercial. There's some stuff that open source simply can't seem to get right or there's not enough interest from developers using their free time on it. Everything has its' advantages and niches but I've yet to see a perfect app or OS (except for RISC OS of course ).

asininity

Marty_J wrote: »

The same flaw that existed in the iPhone OS also existed in Windows Mobile and Android, and it was patched by Apple and Google.

It can take Apple a while to issue a patch for something, but as far as I'm aware, none of the security flaws that have been widely publicised were ever actually used to attack Macs, so perhaps Apple know something that we don't.

Two interesting articles about Mac security:

The Unavoidable Malware Myth: Why Apple Won’t Inherit Microsoft’s Malware Crown

Are Macs more Safe than Secure? No.


As for Microsoft considering Linux a rival, that might not be such good news for Linux. 9 out of 10 netbooks are now sold with Windows on them, which is pretty much a direct reversal of the netbook market when it first emerged. Microsoft has deep pockets, and is totally obsessed with market-share to an almost psychotic degree, so it doesn't mind losing money in order to get a bigger slice of a pie-chart. The fact is, Microsoft have undercut Linux, and they will continue to do so if they think Linux is a threat. Linux being free is in some ways its greatest disadvantage; many people are in the position of Oscar Wilde's critic, who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. Microsoft don't compete by making better products, they compete by running the competition out of town, taking their ideas, and then patting themselves on the back for how "innovative" they are.

I don't really think Apple is a competitor to Microsoft either, at least not in the OS arena. Apple competes with Dell, Sony, HP, etc, not Microsoft. If someone wants a £300 computer, they're not going to be buying an Apple, regardless of what OS it runs. You can see Microsoft are well aware of this in the Laptop Hunter ads they've been airing in the States, where they basically try to convince consumers that cheap computers are good enough for them; yet another example of how the price of something, not its value, is what resonates with many people. I'm sure their hardware partners (who make most profit selling high-end systems) really appreciated that.

Microsoft doesn't have to compete on a level playing field with Linux (in the same way it has to with the Zune in regards to the iPod for instance). Most people who buy a computer get one with Windows on it, so as it stands, the ability of Linux to compete with Microsoft is rather limited. It doesn't really matter how much better Linux is, people will buy what they've bought before unless they have a compelling reason to do otherwise. Until we see PC World selling pic'n'mix computers, where you choose your hardware and then add on the cost of whatever OS you want on top, consumers are still going to buy computers with Windows on them. There exists a perception that Windows comes free with a computer (when in actual fact, it's pretty expensive), so many consumers feel that something that is worth £100+, but they got for free, represents better value than something that's actually free (i.e. Linux), so they're loathe to not take advantage of the great deal they got. And those who realise it does cost money don't want to use anything else as they think they might as well use something they've already paid for.

While OEMs are still selling pre-built ready to use systems, Microsoft can keep them all on a tight leash, and the computers are going to come with Windows on them.

Understand what you're saying but MS are saying its a threat themselves. The fact is that they aren't running linux out of town, MS's position is strong but not unassailable.

Apples being based on unix isnt a reason to assume its secure and get lazy, ubuntu updates security issues quickly.

Marty_J

asininity wrote: »

Understand what you're saying but MS are saying its a threat themselves. The fact is that they aren't running linux out of town, MS's position is strong but not unassailable.

Well, here's what Steve Ballmer said about Linux in a Financial Analyst meeting at the end of July:

"A year ago, the world was still mostly talking about a thing called a MID. Don't know what a MID is, really never knew what a MID was, but we got a real concrete substantiation of a MID during the last 12 months. A MID was a netbook. And when they first shipped, people said, oh, this is this, this is something brand new, this is blah, blah, blah. And they shipped with Linux, and blah, blah, blah, blah. We now know what a MID is. And we now know a MID is a netbook, and what's a netbook? A netbook is a PC. Nobody wanted any netbooks that didn't have Windows on them. So we went from nothing to about 95–96 percent attach on netbooks. And I will tell you the other 4 percent probably have Windows on them also.

...

Linux, it's all about Linux. We've been competing with Linux for a number of years. I want to describe our value proposition. We are a high-volume player. We do not, say, like Apple, believe in low volume, very high prices, very—Apple is a great company, does a fine job. But their model says high margin, high quality, high price. That's kind of how they come to market.

We say we want big market share. But with big market share, you take a lower price. Well, along comes Linux, and they say, "We have no price." Which, of course, we know for IP and other reasons, of course they have a price. But they say, "We have no price."

The problem you have with these so-called free alternatives is, there's also not the incentive to do a lot of the hard work to build out the ecosystems, to support the hardware vendors that is required. So a model like ours, which is high volume and high value, but low price, but not free, you can say, "Are you guys in the middle ground or are you where you want to be?" And I say we're exactly where we want to be. We can't be high priced, that doesn't get you the volume that we aspire to. But if you go all the way to free, you also get cognitive dissonance. In the Linux case, you also have some other issues that come to bear. Linux is, quote, open. In our case, we say we are open. We support open standards and open innovation, but you can't change our operating system.

So we maintain a fixed design point in the Windows world, which the Linux community has never managed to do. So Linux is still not Linux. And whether we are talking about Android Linux or other Linux distributions, it's hard to build ecosystem momentum with a very, let me say, chaotic design point."

Microsoft have been doing their best to get rid of Linux for quite some time (remember Ballmer calling Linux "a cancer"?), and they've been pretty successful at it thanks in no small part to their influence over OEMs.

Apples being based on unix isnt a reason to assume its secure and get lazy, ubuntu updates security issues quickly.

Totally agree, but as I said, none of the much publicised vulnerabilities on the Mac were exploited by anyone before Apple released a patch for them, so from a purely pragmatic point of view, it somewhat vindicates the time it has taken for Apple to release a fix.

Now, you could be idealistic and say that one day is too long to have a perceived security problem, but that's another matter.

asininity

Steve Balmer always has talked !!!! that old IP crap is well crap. Half of that doesn't make sense. And hes making stuff up out of his !!! as usual. It actually made me chuckle. They've not done a good job really of getting rid of it, its still here and more and more people know about it. It doesn't matter that ms have xp on the majority of netbooks. And they'll never rid the server industry of it.

And I dont think the excuse that just because no one bothered to exploit the security flaw apple can take their time. Banking on it not being exploited sounds a bit silly.