"mad As H*ll, Switching To Mac..."

[buadhai]

Here’s my answer to the WinTel problem: We need an open Simple Operating System (SOS) that meets the needs of the majority of people who buy PCs for everyday home and enterprise tasks. Get rid of the complexity and simplify the interface between SOS, BIOS and hardware. In other words, KISS. You know what it means. KISS SOS.

Because SOS doesn’t exist yet, my company has given up on WinTel. We have successfully moved to Mac in less than two days. Think about it: a security-friendly alternative that works and doesn’t require gobs of third-party utilities to safely perform the most mundane tasks. Please follow the details of our experiment at www.securityawareness.blogspot.com. It’s already way more interesting than I thought it would be.

Read the complete rant here:

Mad As H*ll...

[Firefoxx]

It's pretty strange how well the consumer is accepting the mac's integration of various programs, like browsers, into its OS package. Some people may recall that there were very vocal complaints about how Microsoft started integrating IE into its OS.

Remember that there are two main factors why IE is so targeted by hackers: The user base of windows and the fact that IE is used by most of that user base (it's easier to use something already installed, no?). So hackers will aim for the biggest target, and alternative browsers (with their less than 10% user base) are relatively safe. It doesn't mean that alternative browsers are any more bug-free/secure than IE, it just means that relatively few hackers have bothered to target them.

With macs gaining popularity, the user base will increase to a significant amount, and like in the case of IE, safari will be targeted. Of course, it will be hard for safari to become as targeted as IE, since this is a wintel world (and will remain so for some time to come).

An analogy would be owning a car made by Toyota. A lot will be stolen, not because they're particularly easy to steal, but because they're so numerous and thieves have become adept at stealing them.

Saying "gobs of third party programs" is pretty stupid, and if that's the conclusion of his IT guy, then he should be fired. I can safely run my computer with little more than an antivirus program and an alternative browser. To put it in perspective, many of those "gobs" of programs (and others) won't run on a mac.

BTW, I've had a change to try out the "mac experience", as a relative bought one (reason: looks nice, and little else). My conclusion: fairly easy to use, but still has many strange things going on, uttlerly expensive (to buy and upgrade), limited selection of programs, and very nice on the eyes.

[buadhai]

When I lived on Saipan (through March of this year) I had Verizon ADSL service with a fixed IP address. I ran a web server, SFTP server and left the ports open that I needed to SSH into my machine from the road. Every second of every day that machine was subject to malicious attacks, almost all of them from the same subnet as my machine: that is, Verizon customers on the tiny island of Saipan. All of these came from infected PC's. Many were long outdated and since fixed query string buffer overrun attacks on Apache indicating that the infected machines had been sick for a very long time.

When I asked Verizon network administrators why they didn't do something about it they said that it was simply cheaper to increase the bandwidth to accommodate the attacks then it would be to help customers disinfect their machines and to keep them clean.

Sure, it's possible to safely run a PC with a decent firewall, virus program and intelligent software choices. The fact is that Mom and Pop and many corporate users either don't know how to do this or don't bother. (Does anyone have confidence that their Mom could download, install, configure and run Firefox?)

Trouble is, we all pay for that wasted bandwidth.

So, the world gets cheap Windoze machines and the rest of us end up paying for the consequences of their sloppy software.

Finally, I didn't intend this to be another Mac/Win debate. That will, of course, never be resolved.

But, I think it's interesting that more and more professionals are coming to the realization that resource hogging mal-ware is here to stay unless simpler and better protected operating systems gain wider acceptance. The Mac is just one alternative. Granted, an expensive one and not for everyone. But, it's simple, it works and, for the time being, it's pretty safe.

[Firefoxx]

My point, actually, was that wintels are not innately worse than other systems (as most people like to say, and as you say "sloppy"), it's that they are numerous and so they're the target of choice for hackers. Why spend time developing a hack for the endangered species when you can make one for the big game? So you have, say 99% of hackers/script kiddies targeting wintels, with 1% targeting "everyone else" (which includes macs). What if the tables were turned? I bet you woul be thinking that macs were sloppy.

Many people think that unix/linux based machines are more secure than wintels (and base the "mac is hack-free" argument on this). They're not. They're as prone to hacks as anything else when a non-geek sets it up (and even geeks will make mistakes). No? Those windows "zombies" you've seen have also happened to unix/linux distros many many times in the past. Where do you think the idea originated?

I run XP sp1, and use the built-in firewall (it's more than good enough). I also use opera and a virus scanning program. That's about all I have to be intelligent about, and other than the alternative browser (which is catching on), it's basic common sense.

Again, the analogy of cars/Toyotas. They're not "sloppy" in their design or construction. They're just so numerous that they're the target of choice. Both the Mac OS and Windows OS have borrowed ideas from each other... both have had numerous updates, both cosmetic and security. If one was indeed sloppy, why does the other borrow so many things from it? If one was indeed perfect from conception (ie. sloppy=not secure), why the frequent security updates? It's not truly "better protected", it's just "not worthy of my hacking time".

It's one thing to say "macs are great", but others won't appreciate it when their system is called "sloppy". Grounds for a debate, yes?

[buadhai]

Grounds for a debate, yes?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No. Been there. Done that. Can't be bothered.

[RDN]

Grounds for a debate, yes?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No. Been there. Done that. Can't be bothered.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good! (Who won, by the way? )

[buadhai]

Good! (Who won, by the way? )

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I hope no one. The point is to figure out ways to fight back against the scourge of SPAM and mal-ware. Rehashing old arguments won't do it.

[Firefoxx]

What I meant by that was since you said " I didn't intend this to be another Mac/Win debate.", I was wondering why you were insulting the PC camp ("sloppy") while celebrating the Mac camp ("better protected", etc) and thus instigating another Mac vs PC flame war.

If you can't be bothered, don't start one with comments like this.

[buadhai]

What I meant by that was since you said " I didn't intend this to be another Mac/Win debate.", I was wondering why you were insulting the PC camp ("sloppy") while celebrating the Mac camp ("better protected", etc) and thus instigating another Mac vs PC flame war.

If you can't be bothered, don't start one with comments like this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Go back and read the OP. All I did was call attention to what I thought was an interesting article. In fact, I referred to as being a "rant". You're the one who immediately dropped in to flame mode. I responded with a simple observation of the devastating effect a bunch of infected machines can have on a small, isolated ISP. The point I was making was that while PC's can be "safe", many are not.

My use of the word "sloppy" was probably sloppy and I apologize for it.

I find it interesting that you criticized the author's use of the word "gobs" and then you turn around and criticize the Mac with the equally non-specific "many strange things going on".

Enough.

[h90]

I could now add that only Linux is good and that all user of other systems are idiots, to make the discussion a bit more emotional

Actually I do not use Linux, and I really don't care about that topic, but funny that people can get very angree about OS.....

[melus]

So, the world gets cheap Windoze machines and the rest of us end up paying for the consequences of their sloppy software.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Perhaps mgnewman is a member of...

[Firefoxx]

"Strange" is strange, it is not a negative word. Strange things can happen, but are they bad? Strange=unfamiliar. It's a different OS, for crying out loud. Drawing conclusions from a vague comment, now that's strange. Also, it was a personal conclusion from a short experience with someone else's Mac. If anyone will suddenly base their Mac purchasing decision on the vague word "strange" (coming from a PC user, at that), then I'm the king of England.

Apology accepted, but I also say that I didn't drop into "flame mode". Apart from the "strange" comment (which again, I don't think is harsh/negative), I was actually very unbiased and absolutely civil. But is " require gobs of third-party utilities to safely perform the most mundane tasks" negative? Yes. Is it true? No. Gobs=a LOT, and so far I see only two that are even remotely required.

Was I initially replying to your comments or the gentleman's? Since your original comment was nearly nonexistant, I think you know the answer. However, your reply, although initially filled with facts, did include that one sentence which had, among other things, the word "sloppy", which was not very nice, and was just begging for a retort. Now if that sentence weren't there, I wouldn't have responded at all.

Enough? Who knows.