Re: The Myth of the secure Mac

Snit <SNIT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> "Peter Hayes" <not_in_use@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> stated in post
> 1h57t8n.11bmjixxpkwkiN%not_in_use@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 10/29/05 2:31 PM:
>
> > Snit <SNIT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> "Peter Hayes" <not_in_use@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> stated in post
> >> 1h57rj3.1bg367m1cvk9l3N%not_in_use@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 10/29/05 2:12 PM:
> >>
> >>> Oxford <csma@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> not_in_use@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Peter Hayes) wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Oh, it's bigger than a contiguous Linux platform, only if you add in
> >>>>>> Servers could it be larger, but that will change next year. 4.5-6
> >>>>>> million macs will come online,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> How many macs will go offline next year?
> >>>>
> >>>> and how many linux boxes will be retired during the same time?
> >>>
> >>> Sorry, what have Linux boxes got to do with how many macs will go
> >>> offline next year?
> >>>
> >>>> OSX macs? oh, probably 500,000, os9? probably 2 million.
> >>>
> >>> Cite?
> >>>
> >>> But assuming, for the moment, that you haven't pulled these figures out
> >>> of thin air or your ass, there'll be 2 million new Macs online.
> >>>
> >>> There'll be ten, twenty, maybe thirty-plus times as many x86 machines
> >>> going online in the same timeframe, Windows and Linux.
> >>
> >> And, of course, there are many more #2 pencils sold than either. Does
> >> that, to you, imply the pencil is the better tool? Not to me!
> >
> > Your point?
>
> Clearly went over your head. Such is life.

It was a numerical question, not a quality question.

--

Peter
.