Arsed off with Vista

[jæd]

but OS X is not true UNIX....it has a number of known weaknesses and has a hybrid kernel which doesn't classify it as pure UNIX.

Well... Its not "pure" Unix, but its enough like Unix for there not to be significant differences... You could also argue Linus is not Unix (which it isn't) but that's also very close...

 

[Detroit City]

Well... Its not "pure" Unix, but its enough like Unix for there not to be significant differences... You could also argue Linus is not Unix (which it isn't) but that's also very close...

well if it was true UNIX all the bleedin' large companies would be moving over to OS X and porting all their apps to it. But i don't see any of that going on

you people are comparing apples and oranges, jesus christ

 

[Iam]

And you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Jesus Christ.

 

[Kanda]

The point being we can compare them. You stated we couldn't.

We're talking OS's to use at home, not enterprise class hardware/OS situations. Why are you dragging that into it?

 

[Detroit City]

And you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Jesus Christ.

sorry, but I don't compare one-user PC operating systems with and O/S that can accomodate thousands of concurrent users and process huge amounts of data while also staying secure and stable.

 

[Iam]

Blah blah blah.

You are currently in a queue for caring. Your opinion matters deeply to us. Please hold the line until one of our representatives can answer...

 

[jæd]

well if it was true UNIX all the bleedin' large companies would be moving over to OS X and porting all their apps to it. But i don't see any of that going on

Well... Mostly because there'd be no point for existing apps to use it. The only advantage of OS X of Unix is a pretty interface. Though there's OS X Server which gives you a nice gui for apache and other serverside tools... Its quite handy for small businesses and workgroups... Installing web-apps to OS X is usually a doddle, anyhow...

you people are comparing apples and oranges, jesus christ

What is it about people today...? Must be weather making everyone tetchy...

 

[Kanda]

Well... Its not "pure" Unix, but its enough like Unix for there not to be significant differences... You could also argue Linus is not Unix (which it isn't) but that's also very close...

Just to refresh it like

 

[jæd]

I'm going to unsubscribe from this... There seems to be too much bitchiness to make this useful or interesting... <unsubscribes> yawn, u75 going to the dogs, etc..

 

[Kanda]

I've never subscribed to a thread on Urban

 

[Iam]

Me neither. What does it actually do?

 

[Kanda]

I think it emails you when there's a response... how annoying would that be!!

I wonder if it would Bcc you if you're set as *Do not show my online status*

 

[Iam]

Oh, right. I think I'm ok without that.

 

[stdPikachu]

Aye, looks like ed's plea for civility went unheeded...!

OSX is UNIX. Fact. If you say it isn't, I'd like a definition of what "pure" UNIX is. Perhaps cos it doesn't use the SysV init system? Or even the BSD init system? The fact that, generally, it behaves like UNIX (even if chunks of UNIXey behaviour have been retrofitted) means that it looks and sounds like a duck, no? Neither Linux, BSD, Solaris or OSX are anything like Tru64 (which is the one with the UNIX trademark, IIRC).

Unless of course you're a kernel developer, in which case I'll let you off. But as far as end users and application developers are concerned, OSX = UNIX with a pretty graphical shell. Presence of a window manager does not render UNIX as non-UNIX, just like using cmd.exe in lieu of explorer.exe does not make Windows non-Windowsy. So yes, people were comparing apples with apples, and you were annoyed that some of the apples were a slightly different colour to the others.

*bangs head against firewall*

 

[FridgeMagnet]

There are some odd people out there. Oh well.

ad guff
OS X
Darwin

 

[Pingu]

Do you understand how unix style permissions, along with correct usage of Users & Groups works...? I reckon *not*.

So far, in the five years since the start of OS X, there hasn't been a virus in the wild, and there hasn't been one on Unix for donkey's years. And people are just as interested in security holes on OS X as they are on Windows, if not more because of its more of a challenge.

I'm not going to say it will never happen, just that its very, very, very, very unlikely...

yeah cos there has never been such a thing as a "rootkit" or rmon exploits...

the main reason there are so many "issues" with MS O/S is that its just such a big target and tehre are so many people looking for vunerabilities. If Mac O/Sx or linux ever had the installed user base that widows has then they would become the targets. the vunerabilites are there its just that no one has found them yet. The otehr problem with MS O?S is that in order to get the market penetration they have it needs to be usre friendly. The more features and abilites you give a system the less secure its going to be becasues there are more things to attack. (This is why one server... one function is what you should be aiming for rather than one server... does everything).

Also, and no disrespect to non geeks, the vast majority of the installed MS user base are not technicaly savvy... they will click on stuff called "free money" and not be aware of the shit that has just happened to their computer.

 

[ExtraRefined]

Just for fun, here's another nail in the "OS X has perfect security" coffin;

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/09/12/quicktime_vulnerability_attacks_firefox/

A security flaw that exposes macs, running apple software, to a driveby remote code execution! Of course this is unlikely to ever get exploited, but only because of economics. If you're a malware writer, getting paid per machine you compromise, it makes a lot more sense to target 90% of the market rather than 3%.

If OS X had the same market share as windows, people would start exploiting these vulnerabilities. More pertinently, they'd start writing trojans which can't be meaningfully defended against with permissions or OS design, without making it inconvenient to install legitimate software. Trojans, be they distributed by websites, p2p or mail worms, are the biggest risk to windows machines these days - drive by downloads and slammer style worms are a non issue to fully patched systems.

 

[Boris Sprinkler]

Just for fun, here's another nail in the "OS X has perfect security" coffin;

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/09/12/quicktime_vulnerability_attacks_firefox/

A security flaw that exposes macs, running apple software, to a driveby remote code execution! Of course this is unlikely to ever get exploited, but only because of economics. If you're a malware writer, getting paid per machine you compromise, it makes a lot more sense to target 90% of the market rather than 3%.

If OS X had the same market share as windows, people would start exploiting these vulnerabilities. More pertinently, they'd start writing trojans which can't be meaningfully defended against with permissions or OS design, without making it inconvenient to install legitimate software. Trojans, be they distributed by websites, p2p or mail worms, are the biggest risk to windows machines these days - drive by downloads and slammer style worms are a non issue to fully patched systems.

erm no.

It's an exploit in quicktime. Not OSX.
From the article "While his exploit was tested only on Windows, he adds, "I see no reason why it shouldn't work on Mac"
It also requires a user be logged in as admin. Therefore, in order to get it to work on mac you would have to type your admin password to install it. Admittedly some people would, but the vectors for spreading it would be easier within windows.
It also has very little to do with market share, it's to do with OS architecture. It's already been discussed in this thread. Do keep up.

 

[gnoriac]

If OS X had the same market share as windows, people would start exploiting these vulnerabilities.

I'm sick to death of this tired old cliche which was probably dreamt up by Micros**t's PR dept. Nothing to do at all then with it being so piss easy to put together scripting to break into a windows box that has no 3rd party security? Ever seen the source code to some of the big league worms?

 

[Iam]

It's an odd business model, really.

I mean, no one would buy a car, knowing they would receive the steering wheel 6 months later.

And yet, that's essentially what MS do, and the IT world bought into it...



Still, keeps some of us paid.

*shrug*

 

[Xanadu]

*bangs head against firewall*

That made me geek-snort

 

[jæd]

I'm sick to death of this tired old cliche which was probably dreamt up by Micros**t's PR dept. Nothing to do at all then with it being so piss easy to put together scripting to break into a windows box that has no 3rd party security? Ever seen the source code to some of the big league worms?

Heh... This thread still sucking people in...? 'Tis a well received fact that computers will always get viruses, even if they are ultra-secret government or military computers. Go watch any blockbuster movie to see how obvious this is.

From this logic the idea that something like OS X or even *nix would be immune is patent bollocks...

 

[gnoriac]

From this logic the idea that something like OS X or even *nix would be immune is patent bollocks...

No, you can't draw that conclusion from what I posted.

Anyway, besides all the security pallaver, I won't be going to Vesta for the simple reason that I don't see why I should upgrade my machines to cope with the demands of an OS. I don't mind upgrading to give more power to the apps I use, but an OS driving the hardware spec has the cart and horse the wrong way round. This has long been an issue for me with windows but this as far as it goes for me. I have 1 install of XP and 1 of 2000 and don't see any need to upgrade either.

And what would I get for the upgrade? A flashier user interface, but I don't use pc's to show off to the neighbours. Enhanced DRM, I really f**king need that.

Moreover I suspect at least some of the gluttony of windows comes from poor design / programming.

 

[jæd]

No, you can't draw that conclusion from what I posted.

Well... I was trying to point out the futility of trying to persuade people that viruses, etc, are a design problem...

 

[ExtraRefined]

I'm sick to death of this tired old cliche which was probably dreamt up by Micros**t's PR dept.

Well you should be able to come up with a good response then. And yet...

Nothing to do at all then with it being so piss easy to put together scripting to break into a windows box that has no 3rd party security? Ever seen the source code to some of the big league worms?

Every single one of them was for an already patched vulnerability. There have been worms targeting linux and apache before now, but it's hard to spread when you're firing of packets at random IPs and the chance of them sticking is 1% rather than 95%.

 

[Radar]

Every single one of them was for an already patched vulnerability.

Not true.

There have been worms & viruses exploiting zero day or unpatched vulnerabilities, both in the past and recently.

And we all know MS has a bit of a rep for sitting on vulnerability reports when it suits them or even if they just can't be arsed fixing it (not that sitting there with a bag on your head going "la-la I can't hear you" is a uniquely MS trait )