Re: The Myth of the secure Mac



In article <pan.2005.11.02.03.34.39.839326@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
theletterk <theletterk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 16:00:37 -0800, Donald L McDaniel wrote:
>
> > In article <7st9f.24820$_31.9658@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, TheLetterK
> > <theletterk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> Donald L McDaniel wrote:
> >> > In article <ARd9f.30345$ty1.9711@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, TheLetterK
> >> > <theletterk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>Donald L McDaniel wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>In article <uow8f.18753$NJ.1576@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, TheLetterK
> >> >>><theletterk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>That is equally untrue. You are screwed only if you use Outlook.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Let's be truly honest about this, ok? You are only screwed if:
> >> >>>1) You fail to apply necessary recommended security patches after
> >> >>>installing XP, especially SP2, which contains many security
> >> >>>inhancements.
> >> >>>2) You fail to install, use, and update decent antivirus, anti-trojan,
> >> >>>anti-malware, firewall protection after installing XP or soon
> >> >>>afterward.
> >> >>
> >> >>Oh, goody. After dropping $100 on a peice of software that does nothing,
> >> >>I get to go buy/find even *more* software.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Claiming that an antivirus package "does nothing"
> >> I was speaking of Windows. OEM Windows XP Home goes for a bit under $100.
> >
> > The only reason I ever used XP Home was because it was cheaper than XP
> > Pro, and was all I could afford at the time. However, when I was able
> > to afford it, I switched to XP Pro, which is, in my opinion, much more
> > secure than Home.
> 'much more secure'? Though this really has nothing to do with security.
> Literally, XP does *nothing*. It's little more than a (rather
> pricey) platform to allow other applications to run.

If that is what it is, then that is what it is. This fact is
irrelevant. It works as designed. And works very well.

> >>
> >> > only shows your lack
> >> > of understanding of the facts at hand at best, and shows a callous
> >> > disrespect for the programming expertise of Windows security
> >> > programmers at worst.
> >> Well, that too.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >>>3) In the case of a firewall, the XP-supplied firewall should be
> >> >>>enabled before going on the Net. Additional firewall software should
> >> >>>be installed, however, for optimal safety.
> >> >>
> >> >>No point. Set your box behind some sort of simple 'hardware firewall'
> >> >>(the side effect of NAT translation is good enough for home users), then
> >> >>have some software firewall that checks outbound packets. No reason for
> >> >>multiple redundency on a home desktop.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>>4) If Internet Explorer is used as default browser, it should be set on
> >> >>>highest security settings which will allow for good browsing. The
> >> >>>Popup Blocker should also be engaged, and set at highest settings
> >> >>>possible which allow for good browsing.
> >> >>
> >> >>Nothing to do with the subject we were discussing.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Browser security has nothing to do with overall security of the OS?
> >> > You really are a maroon, aren't you?
> >> Was I speaking of overall security? No. I was speaking of the security
> >> of an e-mail account, idiot.
> >
> > I, on the other hand, was speaking about overall Windows security, not
> > the security of an e-maill client..
> Then why did you respond to my post?

Because I had something to say to you (and others).

>
> >
> > But while we are speaking about e-mail clients (among other things),
> > Outlook is very secure if properly configured.
> Again, my house is very secure if properly configured. Do I want to go
> through the hassle of shoring the walls with reinforced concrete, bricking
> in the windows, and replacing the normal wooden door with a time-locked
> safe door? Not really.

Well, make up your mind: Either Outlook is secure, or it is not. If
it's secure, stop lying about its "lack" of security.

It matters not in the least if it is overly secure, or marginally
secure. It is secure in either case.

>
> >
> > In the world of Windows, we don't generally speak of "security of an
> > e-mail client", or "security of a brower", we speak of "security of the
> > Operating System".
> Because that is the area where most of your holes reside. Once you fix
> that swiss cheese, you'll move up to the rest of the computing world and
> start looking at specifics.

I doubt seriously whether Microsoft will ever take complete control of
security. It is just not part of their design philosophy.

>
> >
> > We do this because Windows itself only has rudimentary security
> > measures. Microsoft counts on third-party developers to provide more
> > advanced security measures (although they did expend a little time and
> > energy with XP to add a desktop firewall, and add a popup blocker to
> > the web browser, and make several changes in security strategy in the
> > OS itself, and increase the security of the email client. In all this,
> > they also made it easier for users to access the security features of
> > the OS.)
> That is absurd. Why the hell is such a basic product over $100?

In a market economy, a business owner has the right to set the price he
desires for his product. Get used to it.

However, I do believe that Microsoft could adjust their prices for the
OS downward somewhat. They also need to update their EULAs to give
licensees full fair use rights.

>
> >
> > They do this for several reasons, not the least of which is to provide
> > work for many, many others. If there were not third-party developers,
> > Microsoft itself would have to bear the brunt of all the programming
> > and development costs, including human resources costs , plus support
> > costs when the software is finally distributed.
> Well, yes--that's why people hand over massive wads of cash to buy the
> damn thing. Yet it does nothing of value. Why do you continue to do it?

Why do you insist that Windows does nothing of value? Don't you value
the work of the people who use Microsoft products? If you don't why
should we value anything you do?

>
> >
> > Let's face it: Bill Gates is not a European Communist or American
> > Socialist, he is an American Capitalist, the son of an American
> > Capitalist, living in a Capitalist society, in a rapidly-expanding
> > Capitalist world. Nor does he apologize for being an American
> > Capitalist or the son of an Americann Capitalist. As well he shouldn't
> > have to. After all, he has realized the dreams all other Americans
> > (and Europeans, and Africans, and Asians, and South Americans,
> > Orientals, and Mid-Easterners, and Pacific Islanders) have.
> > (if I left anyone out, please forgive me)
> Matthew Szulik and Bob Young are American Capitalists too. What's your
> point here? That Gates is a genius at charging for snake oil?
>
> >
> > But because Bill Gates HAS encouraged other developers to develop for
> > his Windows platform, Mr. Gates and the developers have all grown rich
> > through their partnership.
> And this is a good thing for the user... why? It means they get taken for
> fools, and their wallets go along for the ride.

Windows users have gotten good value from their OSes. The OS will pay
for itself before a year is out easily.

>
> >
> > Now, the Windows way may seem foreign to long-time Mac users (and it
> > probably does), but that is the way Microsoft does it.
> No, it seems *stupid* to long-time Mac users. And long-time Windows users
> like myself. That's why I moved away from it. Too expensive, too
> ineffective, too complex.

That is your opinion, and you are certainly welcome to it. I am not
here to change your mind about the OS platform you use. I am here to
encourage you to have a little better attitude toward your fellow human
beings.

>
> > I can
> > understand why Mac users would feel that the Windows way is foreign to
> > them. Because the Mac way seems to be that the OS handles all security
> > extensively itself. Completely opposite to the Windows way. In
> > addition, because Mac apps appear not to share a common memory space
> > with the OS, but are each isolated in their own memory space, apps
> > would be much less able to corrupt the OS memory space with wild
> > pointer references. So in this way, OS X is better than Windows at
> > keeping its OS memory space safe. One point for Apple.
> >
> > However, because I myself am an American Capitalist, I prefer the
> > Microsoft way of offloading the development costs and extra time and
> > energy necessary to provide extensive security on to third-party
> > developers, while creating jobs in the process. So one point for
> > Microsoft. Trickle-down economics do work.
> Works for the companies, but we're discussing products for consumers.
> Microsoft charges *way* too much for their snake oil. XP Pro should be
> worth, IMO, ~$30--not $300.

The market decides on the cost of a product, not people who hate the
product.

>
> Trickle-down economics always sucks for the consumer, though better than
> the common alternative. Still, GNU/Linux goes to show you that
> capitalistic anarchy might actually work.

Being a Christian and subject to the order of the Universe, I abhor
anarchy of any kind.

>
> >
> > And because I am an American Capitalist with a heart, I also like that
> > Microsoft and Mr. Gates share their wealth very generously with the
> > rest of the world. I am certainly not going to judge their motives for
> > doing this, either. As a sinner of the first rank, I have no room to
> > judge others' motives. Since I have only done what is required of me,
> > leave me at zero.
> I think I could do more good just handing that $100 over to some charity,
> rather than filtering it through Microsoft's coffers and having some of
> that trickle into Gates' pockets.

Mr. Gates makes DIRECT GRANTS of millions of dollars money to needy
causes which he thinks will improve the health and welfare of the
world's poor, not $100 handouts.

>
> >
> > Since I do not know Mr. Jobs' record on generosity, I cannot give or
> > take away a point for him. So leave him at 1 for now.
> He's a greedy pig--more so than even Steve Ballmer.
>
> >
> > Microsoft 1, Apple 1
> How is that 'Microsoft 1'? Are we discussing social issues here? No, we're
> discussing the merits of one OS over another.

We are also discussing the merits of one corporate philosophy and
culture over another.

>
> >
> > My giving and receiving are done in secret, so neither give nor take
> > away a point from me. I have only done what is required of me. So I'm
> > still sitting on zero.
> >
> > However, if Apple's prices for their machines are any indication of
> > their generosity, take away a point from them for greed.
> Apple's pricing isn't quite as bad as people make it out to be. Their
> focus is less on direct specifications and more on solid engineering. It
> doesn't always make them a good value--but Apple's margins are lower than
> most hardware manufacturers.
>
> >
> > So leave Apple at zero, too.
> >
> > Looks like we have a winner:
> > Microsoft 1, Apple 0, Donald 0
> Because you conjured fecal matter from your ass to raise Microsoft's
> "score".

Don't forget that I gave Microsoft 1 point for their generosity to the
poor and for increasing the number of people who have decent work.

>
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>>5) If Outlook is used:
> >> >>> a) Junk Mail filter should be enabled, and set at highest level.
> >> >>>This will allow for some false-positives (not many, once it is
> >> >>>trained), but will filter out the majority of the crap (especially crap
> >> >>>containing social engineering in the body of the message or malware
> >> >>>attached as common Windows files) Make sure this Junk Mail is moved to
> >> >>>a local "Junk Mail" folder, so that it can be later examined for false
> >> >>>positives before being deleted. It might be a good idea to archive
> >> >>>Junk Mail for a few months, so that you will have a pretty good set of
> >> >>>messages which can be trained as Junk Mail. Or, just train it as you
> >> >>>go along (or automatically, if you don't mind some of your legitimate
> >> >>>mail being classified as "Junk").
> >> >>
> >> >>Or just forgo outlook in favor of a decent e-mail client.
> >
> > Yeh, like Apple Mail. hehe..
> Yeah, like Thunderbird.
>
> >
> > The fact is, Outlook is a great e-mail client.
> I wouldn't use it if it was a veritable fort knox. IT's just *not a good
> e-mail client*.
>
> > It's very configurable,
> Maybe compared with Apple's Mail--not something like Thunderbird.
>
> > and works as designed.
> You mean Microsoft *designed* it to suck that badly?

Whether or not it "sucks" to you, it evidently doesn't "suck" to many
millions of licensees.

Your opinion is irrelevant.

>
> > In addition, it has all necessary security
> > features which make it work well with the OS.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Your characterization of Outlook as a "not-decent" email client
> >> > certainly doesn't give much credit to the software engineers at
> >> > Microsoft. To me it only shows your lack of understanding of just what
> >> > a "decent" email client is.
> >> Your right, it was disrespectful. That was, after all, the *intent*.
> >
> > So now you admit that your heart is full of malice and hatred toward
> > others, especially the folks at Microsoft. Thanks for that bit of
> > honesty, at least.
> The folks at Microsoft did a lot to engender such a response from
> me--forcing their sub-standard products on me at tremendous cost for years
> on end does that to a person.

They came up to your house, and FORCED you to purchase their products?
SHOUT IF FROM THE ROOFTOPS, call up your lawyer, and sue the pants off
them. But I doubt that you will get very far, since Microsoft in no
way "forced" you to purchase their products.
>
> >
> >> >>There is no excuse for self-executing e-mail viruses. None.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > There is also no excuse for any other type of malware. They are all
> >> > written by criminals who have no concern for the lives or property
> >> > rights of anyone but themselves.
> >> I agree, Microsoft's actions are criminally neglegent.
> >
> > Microsoft is not the one which writes the malicious software, dufus.


> They're just the ones that allow it.

Microsoft can't stand at everyone's desk in the entire world, and hold
their hands while they work at their computers. Nor should they have
to.

Grow up, and learn to take care of your own security yourself, instead
of bitching about how bad you think Microsoft products are.

>
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>>Try to keep this in mind at all times: Never click on a link contained
> >> >>>in an email message from someone you have never communicated with or do
> >> >>>not recognize. It can only lead to damage to your file structure.
> >> >>
> >> >>Don't patronize me.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Patronize you? Sir, you do me an injustice by accusing me of this. I
> >> > don't know you. I have simply given general principles of Windows
> >> > security to anyone who needs it. Apparently you don't. Take what you
> >> > want from the plate, and leave the rest, but don't spit on it. It is
> >> > offered from an honest heart with a sincere desire to help someone who
> >> > might need the instruction.
> >
> > By the way, it was also offered to help clear up some of the dishonesty
> > propagated in this newsgroup about Microsoft and Windows, and its
> > users.
> >
> > It was certainly not offered to try to prove the superiority or lack of
> > superiority of any Operating System.
> >
> >
> >> > Saying that a Wintel does nothing of value completely denigrates the
> >> > millions of workers out there who use Wintels on their desktops every
> >> > day to do the work of many industrialized nations.
> >> No, it points out that third party vendors do an excellent job at
> >> compensating for Microsoft's deficiencies.
> >
> > Don't try to obfuscate the praise which belongs to those workers, stud.
> Who's obfuscating? Certainly not me. I was just pointing out the truth.
>
> >
> > Anyway, is Microsoft deficient, or is it doing exactly what it intends?
> > My thesis is that Microsoft is doing exactly what it has intended all
> > along.
> All the more reason to avoid their products. Strange that your comments do
> not jive with Microsoft's comments on the matter. They seem to think they
> have some sort of responsibility to patch holes in their product. What a
> shock there.

Who is talking about no responsibility to patch products? I'm talking
about Microsoft's programming philosophy. As far as patches are
concerned, Microsoft believes it has a responsibility to its customers
(up to a limit) for the proper operation of its software. I fully
agree with this. Any company should support its customers, up to a
point. And Microsoft has supported its customers. They have
supported them better at some times than at others, but they have still
supported them. This is the general state of affairs for ANY IT
company. Apple is certainly no less responsible to its licensees, nor
is it any better or worse than Microsoft in providing this support.

However, since they have no control over what its customers do with the
software after they purchase it, they definitely have no responsibility
for any damage which may result as a result of the user's ignorance or
ineptness. Microsoft simply makes available material which gives
proper operating guidelines for its various software products.
Microsoft is definitely not responsible if some of its customers will
not avail themselves of this information, and follow their recommended
guidelines. In addition, it is the responsibility of the licensee to
educate himself on the proper operation of his computer. If the
licensee will not educate himself, how can Microsoft be held
responsible?
>
>
> >
> > Jeeze, man! Don't you want to give American programmers work? Or are
> > you some kind of anti-American?.
> I'm 'anti-ripoff'. I'm not opposed to paying a reasonable fee for a
> product. What I'm opposed to are Microsoft's insanely over priced pieces
> of shit. They're priced like premium products, and perform like something
> one might dig out of a dumpster.
>
> But yes, I do think most coding should be outsourced to SE Asia. As a
> whole, American coders have demonstrated quite admirably that their
> talents have faded to obscurity. This is said as a nationalistic American.
>
> >
> > The Bible tells us "he who will not care for his own is worse than a
> > barbarian, and has denied his own morals." (my paraphrase).
> Good thing I think the Bible is a load of pretentious bullshit.
>
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>> Installing additional anti-malware software will only
> >> >>>increase your chances of being relativly safe
> >> >>
> >> >>While also increasing resource usage.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > "Resource usage" was a problem with Window 98. However, XP was
> >> > designed from the ground up to better handle resources.
> >> Alright, but better handling of resources still doesn't mean disk
> >> swapping gets faster.
> >
> > The speed of disk swapping is a function of the hard drive controller
> > in your computer (PC or Mac) and the speed of the disk platter's spin,
> > not the OS's pagefile.
> I am aware of this, you made the claim that it was not true.
>
> >
> > In other words, a slow disk on one system will be a slow disk on
> > another.
> Exactly--so how did 'improved handling of resources' help these bloated
> Windows apps run any faster? They're still going to swap to disk as hard
> as they did before.

Well, few software products can do anything toward increasing the
efficiency of a poorly-performing hard drive and controller. The
solution is to get a faster CPU, with a faster bus, and a faster HD
controller and HD, and more system memory.

>
> >>
> >> > I've never
> >> > noticed a slow down on my XP machine because of "resource usage",
> >> > except when I had poorly-behaved or beta software running in the
> >> > background.
> >> Or when your bloated apps force XP to start paging out to disk.
> >
> > Bloat is also found in OS X apps, too,
> Worse, in fact. OS X's insane bloat is one of it's biggest detriments.
>
> > so I wouldn't be using that as
> > an argument, or you subject yourself to the possibility of being
> > accused as a hypocrite.
> Well, considering my hatred for Windows is nearly matched by my apathy
> for OS X, I don't think I'll stand as a hypocrite for my comments.
>
> >
> > Paging was never a problem for me. I had plenty of memory, and a
> > well-adjusted page file. In addition, my Windows machine has a very
> > fast HD and controller.
> There is no reason to need half a gibibyte of RAM for a glorified word
> processor and Internet appliance.

Most users no longer use their computers as a "glorified word processor
and internet appliance." They use graphics-intensive programs, and
files. These are usually very large files, so they need speed and
memory.

>
> >
> > I have never heard the HD thrashing on that computer. In addition, the
> > front of the case had a light which flashed during disk operation. I
> > seldom saw it light up, unless I was saving a file.
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Well-written XP programs will have little or no effect on available
> >> > resources. With XP, the only arbiter of resource usage is the amount
> >> > of available memory, and the amount of free disk space.
> >> Unfortunately, well written applications are few and far between on XP.
> >
> > This is simply not true. The level of expertise of Windows developers
> > has risen steadily over the last few years, so well-written
> > applications are the norm, not the exception.
> You mean 'decreased'. CS programs just keep turning out ever-more-lazy
> coders, who promptly enter the work force developing overly bloated
> applications with C# or Java.
>
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Even under OS X,
> >> OS X is even worse about this.
> >>
> >> > an app can only use available memory, and the more
> >> > apps running there are, the more available memory will be used, and the
> >> > more demand on disk resources will be.
> >> Yes, but it handles virtual memory better than XP does, at least. XNU's
> >> VM performances is one of the few things that it is noted for.
> >
> > I will not make a judgment on the superiority of one way over another.
> > Each OS handles virtual memory using a memory manager. Apparently they
> > each work well enough for their respective architectures. I doubt that
> > the OS X memory manager would do anything useful for Windows, just as I
> > doubt that the XP memory would do anything useful for OS X. They were
> > each designed for their own architectures.
> OS X's architecture simply lends itself better to the concept.

Whether it does or not is irrelevant to the way you treat others.

> >
> > When OS X is finally released for x86, we will visit this again, when
> > Apple will have to write memory management code for the x86
> > architecture instead of the PPC.
> Won't matter a bit. It ran on x86 before it did PPC anyway (OS X, in
> various incarnations, has had a long and close relationship with x86).

>From what I have read, apps on the Developer edition of OS X86 run much
faster than the same apps on a PPC machine, so evidently there is
something better about an x86 architecture which is conducive to good
memory management..

> >
> > However, I do like that applications under OS X each have their own
> > separate memory space, and remain isolated from the OS memory space.
> > This would definitely lead to fewer OS crashes (not that I ever
> > experienced many XP OS crashes) But it would at least lower the
> > chances for an OS crash.
> XP crashes a lot more often than OS X does.

I don't disagree with this at all. I've had my Mac running almost
constantly since I got it, and have yet to crash the machine. I've
also been adding and removing software products in great numbers, with
little or no effect on OS performance. I could not do this under XP..
The Registry would swiftly get filled up with crap and eventually get
corrupted.

>
> >
> >>
> >> > This will all conspire to use
> >> > up resources on XP, and the same things will conspire to use up
> >> > resources on OS X, so OS X is really no "better" at resource usage than
> >> > XP is.
> >> Did I say or imply that it was?
> >
> > Yes, you did. When you claim that XP has poorer resource usage than OS
> > X, you say by implication that OS X's resource management is superior.
> I said OS X's *VM performance* was better. OS X's overall resource
> management is still in the dark ages.
>
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>>and free from malware
> >> >>>using XP Professional. Third-party firewalls are mostly installed to
> >> >>>control what goes OUT of your machine, not what comes in. In addition,
> >> >>>they are installed for the extra features, such as a visible Whois map
> >> >>>or Popup control, or to add better Spam controls and filters to your
> >> >>>email client, or better logging abilities.
> >> >>
> >> >>I am aware of this.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Ok, so you are aware of it. Big deal. Many people are aware of it.
> >> > However, others might not have been aware of it, and now are. Get over
> >> > yourself, dude.
> >> Well, why the hell did you reply to my post if you weren't directing
> >> your comments at mine?
> >
> > I was, partly. While I was addressing you, I was also addressing other
> > issues. Again, get over yourself.
> It gets confusing having someone respond to one of my posts then promptly
> getting upset when I counter his claim... Why didn't you just respond to
> the OP of the comments in question?

I do not have to answer to anyone for my timing. That is just the way
it happened. That is also the way it will probably be, knowing me.

>
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>>Now, this may or may not be necessary on the OS X desktop, but that is
> >> >>>irrelevant. The fact is, the above measures will keep you safe and
> >> >>>free from malware on Windows XP Professional if carefully and
> >> >>>consistently applied,
> >> >>
> >> >>But why go through the trouble? Windows is a peice of shit even in the
> >> >>best of situations.
> >
> > You refuse to recognise the millions and millions of XP users who are
> > completely happy with their OS,
> People like pop bands too, doesn't make them good musicians. There are a
> great deal many reasons why people use XP and not an alternative--the
> least common of which is actual preference for XP. Ignorance of
> alternatives and long-term investment are the two biggest factors.
>
> > and who do the actual every-day work of
> > the majority of businesses in the entire world using it. I kind of
> > understand you: You really can't answer that without having to admit
> > that to millions of users, Windows is NOT a "piece of shit".
> Yes, it is a piece of shit--and I'd say it right to your face.

I don't care, man. Your opinion is completely irrelevant as far as I
am concerned. I have no control over your tongue. Say what you want
to. I'm a big boy. However, be prepared for me to defend myself if
you lie about me or about anything, for that matter.
>
> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > That, sir, is your opinion.
> >
> >
> >
> >> Yes it is. At least you demonstrated that you passed grade school english.
> >
> > So you have no way to refute the truth, and have now passed on to
> > insulting me rather than reasoning with me.
> It is a great deal more entertaining simply to insult an idiot than to
> debate with him.

I did not say "debate", I said "reason". I do not debate with anyone.
I simply state the facts, and wait for the other person to state his.
If I feel inclined, I will respond to his statements. If not, I won't.
I am not trying to score points here.

>
> >
> >>
> >> > It may or may not also be mine. However,
> >> > our opinions are irrelevant. The fact is, the measures I have outlined
> >> > are followed by millions of Windows users every day, and they never
> >> > fail to work if applied consistently.
> >> If I sit in front of my house on a hunting blind with an automatic rifle
> >> at all hours of the day, I doubt anyone will try to break in.
> >
> > Some people are just born stupid, dude, and will fly into the face of
> > danger with no concern for their safety because their greed outweighs
> > their fear.
> Let me amend my statement. I doubt they'll be able to break in. Happy?

Then I accept your statement as truth.

> >
> > But maintaning a Wintel properly takes no more or less time than it
> > takes to properly maintain an Apple.
> It takes much less time to properly maintain the Mac--which requires
> almost no active maintenance.

We will see. I've only had my Mac for a month or so. So far, I have
not had to maintain the computer much. But I didn't have to spend much
time maintaining my PC, either. The way I see it, it's easier to
clean as you go along than it is to trash the place, and then clean it
up afterward.


>
> >
> >>
> >> > If such reasoning were brought to
> >> > its logical conclusion, there would be no police protection on the
> >> > streets, because you might think that all cops are pieces of shit, so
> >> > why use them in the first place?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>>just as properly applying OS X's security
> >> >>>measures works only if carefully and consistently applied. Maccies may
> >> >>>not like this, since it shows the world that Macs are not the only
> >> >>>computers in the world which can be safely maintained by anyone if he
> >> >>>applies himself.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Whether security is handled mostly internally by the OS, as in OS X, or
> >> >>>externally, through third-party Windows apps, is irrelevant, since both
> >> >>>work successfully for their respective platforms.
> >> >>
> >> >>The Windows 'solution' just costs a lot more, and lets more through.
> >
> > The fact is, the "Windows 'solution' " you so glibly denigrate works.
> > So it is a valid solution for Wintel owners. Just as valid as the "OS
> > X 'solution' is for Apple owners"
> OS X isn't particularly capable in this regard.

So you are saying that OS X is not a good OS match for the hardware?
Somehow, I don't believe this, since the package is so solid.

>
> >
> > "Lets more through"? I seldom ever saw any malware on my system,
> > unless it was hidden in a "phishing" expedition. Almost always, either
> > the Spam filters of my e-mail client deleted it before I even saw it,
> > or I recognized it while reviewing my mail, and deleted it myself.
> Then take off the blindfold.
>
> >
> > In addition, my AV/Trojan package stopped ALL malware in their tracks.
> For a mere $70/year, assuming you use only one...

No, nowhere near $70/year. It was more like $19.99 - $29.99 to renew
my subscription to my favorite antivirus package. Other anti-malware
software is free for the asking, such as Ad-Aware or SpyBlaster, and is
used extensively in the PC world, being premium products.
>
> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Compared with spending the excess bucks on the inflated prices of
> >> > Apples, spending a few extra bucks to keep my system free of malware
> >> > would more than pay for itself very quickly.
> >> Where again did I mention Macs?
> >
> > Dude, the very air being expelled from your lungs drips with "Mac".
> Yet the very user-agent in my headers drips of "GNU/Linux" or
> occasionally "Windows XP". Which do you think I prefer, given my previous
> comments?

Well, maybe I have mis-judged you. I have been known to jump to
conclusions. If I have, please forgive me.

>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>> And in fact, both
> >> >>>platforms have some form of firewall,
> >> >>
> >> >>OS X's is a great deal better. Ipfw vs. the XP firewall? Not a contenst,
> >> >>ipfw wins.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > We aren't talking about the relative merits of a piece of software
> >> > here. We are talking about taking care of your data. So your argument
> >> > is totally irrelevant.
> >> Would you want to leave the protection of your house up to a miniature
> >> poodle?
> >
> > In the first place, the Windows firewall is not a "minature poodle" by
> > any means. It stops dead in its tracks any Internet communication you
> > do not personally allow, if that is your wish. It also allows you to
> > complete any Internet transaction you want, if you desire. So it does
> > not interfere with your work unless you tell it to. In the second
> > place, installing and maintaining a decent third-party software
> > firewall is no trouble to me or millions of others.
> Too bad the comparable options for Windows are a few thousand dollars.

What's "a few thousand dollars"? Software firewalls for Windows cost
at most $79.
>
> > Why is it so hard
> > for you to understand this?
> Your claims fly in the face of logic and personal experience both.
>
> > I will tell you why: Because you've been
> > sucking on Stevie's **** all these years,
> *Guffaw* (what a great word to use!). You thin *I'm* a Mac advocate?
>
> > and counting on him to
> > protect you,
> That's why I've been saying things like "OS X is an open door", or "OS X's
> security is pretty much wide open" or "OS X really isn't very secure at
> all". Topped off with a good "I wouldn't trust Apple to take out the
> garbage, let alone protect my data".
>
> > rather than proactively taking your security defenses into
> > your own hands. Get a little backbone, man!
> I do take my security into my own hands--it's why I don't trust third
> party AV options, Apple, *or* Microsoft.

That is certainly your choice. If it works for you, then great. I'm
truly happy for you. However, in the PC world, third-party security
apps are a necessity, not an option. That's the way it is, and that's
probably the way it will always be.


>
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>>some form of junk mail filter,
> >> >>
> >> >>OS X Mail's is better.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > How can you say that with a straight face. Mail's Junk filter is a
> >> > joke. It seldom works as it should, even after weeks of training.
> >> > Whereas the junk mail filter in Outlook works consistently, with few
> >> > false positives. Not only that, but it actually moves the Junk mail
> >> > out of the Inbox and puts it in the Junk Mail folder. Unlike Mail's
> >> > filter.
> >> I've found OS X Mail's filter to be adequate at the very least, and it
> >> tends to spot some bits of junk that others do not.
> >
> > I have found it to be woefully inadequate. I guess we each have a
> > different experience, each just as valid as the other, so neither Apple
> > nor Microsoft get a point on this one.
> >
> >> >
> >> > By the way, I do believe that Apple will be justified in charging for
> >> > OS X/x86, since it will be a major revision of the OS.
> >> It'll be the same OS for x86 as it is for PPC.
> >
> > If you believe that, you don't understand the difference between the
> > Intel CPU and the PPC CPU, I guess.
> No, I simply understand the Mac platform a lot better than you do. OS X
> has *never* been tied to PPC hardware, despite Apple not releasing OS X
> for anything but Macs. The operating itself could have run just fine on
> x86 long ago with little more than a recompile, in all probability (you
> must remember, both Nextstep and Openstep ran on x86 for many
> years--indeed, even the first Rhapsody Release Candidates were originally
> available for x86 only). There's probably not much more involved for Apple
> than to target for x86 instead of PPC and build. They sohuld have done
> this back in 2000 when they had all their developers porting to a new
> architecture anyway.

According to Apple, they have been developing an x86 version of OS X
for each compile cycle of OS X for the PPC.

>
> Though OS X for x86 won't be widely available for consumers until 10.5,
> which *will be* a major update, for other reasons.
>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > That is your opinion. I have never read anywhere of Microsoft
> >> > "squawking" about a recently-discovered perceived "security threat".
> >> > On the contrary. I always read that they are addressing the issue.
> >> 'Addressing the issue' is market muck for 'We have a developer in the
> >> back working on it in their spare time, your own your own'.
> >
> > So you actually think that a programming house is able to find out
> > about an exploit, and overnight, produce a patch for it?
> It has occurred before.
>
> > Not even
> > Apple can do that.
> Apple is worse than most about the promptness of their security updates.
> If you want a model of fast patch availability look at the GNU/Linux
> community.

I simply don't like Linux. The two of us just don't jibe together. I
prefer a mature desktop, not an experimental one.

>
> > It takes time to write and release software
> > patches. They aren't just pieces of code which stop a particular
> > thing. There are many more considerations when writing a patch than
> > that.
> Yup--but it doesn't take a week for most packages. What did I say about
> patronizing me? Just because I think the proprietary software companies
> are a collection of incompetents doesn't mean I don't understand how they
> work.
>
> >
> >>
> >> > I
> >> > am totally convinced that Microsoft takes EVERY perceived "security
> >> > threat" to heart and investigates each and every one. You never hear
> >> > about it, because they address the issues internally, not in the press.
> >> Well, they certainly don't release those fixes to the public in a timely
> >> manner. Maybe Windows is totally secure internally at Microsoft, but
> >> that doesn't really help end users very much.
> >
> > There are so many layers of vetting a piece of Microsoft software has
> > to be put through before it can be released to the general public, I am
> > surprised any patches get released in the first place.
> Yes, it is surprising they bother to do so. After all, Microsoft doesn't
> give a damn about their customers. According to you, they aren't even
> interested in fixing their own security vulnerabilities.

Microsoft does not see them as "security vulnerabilities". They see
them as "features". That these "features" sometimes do not work as
they should is a fact of life. However, when enough customers
complain, Microsoft will move on changing Windows' features.
>
> > Microsoft is
> > simply not on your schedule. They are on their own. You can't yell
> > "Frog!" at Microsoft and have them jump in response immediately.
> > Expecting them to is completely inhumane.
> Expecting them to means I hold them to the same standards I do a fully
> volunteer effort, designed and implemented by committee no less.

I would never hold a "volunteer effort" to ANY standards. I have no
right to judge the standards of anyone, much less someone who is
offereing something to me for free. I simply gratefully receive it.
>
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>> They
> >> >>>carefully consider them in their labs. But they ask for truth and
> >> >>>proof, not supposition and anecdotes. Tell Microsoft about a security
> >> >>>breach, and they will quietly add your testimony to a thousand others'.
> >> >>>And those thousands of anecdotes become over time a pool of usable
> >> >>>data. When they can sufficiently demonstrate the verity of this
> >> >>>testimony, they will admit the truth, and address the issue. This is
> >> >>>EXACTLY what all other manufacturers would do, including Apple.
> >> >>
> >> >>Hrmm, here I thought the GNU/Linux community generally responded much
> >> >>quicker than that.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Time, shmime. Sometimes, these issues take time to properly
> >> > investigate. There are bugs in even the latest versions of Linux, much
> >> > less in the earlier ones.
> >> Yes there are bugs, and timely fixes when found.
> >
> > Who are you to define "timely", anyway? "Timely" means "when Microsoft
> > has the time". Apple is no different in this respect.
> Apple is even worse in this respect. But I wasn't talking about Apple, I
> was talking about the GNU/Linux community.
>
> And yes, I am in a position to judge who I consider to be timely releasers
> of patches. Why should I care if Microsoft thinks they're releasing on
> schedule? It's my schedule that matters, not theirs.

Well, then learn to adjust your schedule to Microsoft's. Microsoft
won't change their schedule to accomodate yours, I assure you (not
unless you lay down the money for very many desktops and support, that
is.)

I do not make a judgment about Microsoft's attitude, I only share it in
hopes it will help you to resign yourself to the facts as they stand.
I will reserve any judgments to myself.

>
> >
> >>
> >> > Bugs are a part of the whole programming
> >> > process. They can't be avoided, since no human being has the ability
> >> > to see EVERY possible outcome of every possible solution.
> >> Of course not. However, when GNU/Linux has a bug revealed, a patch is
> >> usually issued rather quickly. When Windows has a bug revealed,
> >> Microsoft takes their sweet time getting around to a patch.
> >
> > You interpret the time it takes for a patch to appear as "sweet time".
> > But I assure you, the programmers are not having a "sweet time" of it.
> They seem to take theirs when working. Or are the delays simply managerial
> in nature?

Even programmers are not autonomous (though Microsoft does have many
contract programmers in its various teams). Still, they are all
subject to the plans of their project managers. If their project
manager tells them to put one particular project on the shelf for now,
they have to do it. At the same time, they all are subject to the bean
counters and lawyers. If a bean counter says that the funds for a
project have come to the end of their alotted time, they simply dry up,
and that particular project comes to an end, until the bean-counters
alot more money.

If a company lawyer says that a particular project or piece of code
could POSSIBLY affect software license issues, a project may not be
able to continue until its legal status is cleared up.

If Microsoft were a small shop, with only a few programmers, they could
be much more autonomous, but Microsoft is not. There are many
programmers at the Redmond campus alone, each doing their assigned
tasks. But they have to account for their time to the bean counters.

In addition, Microsoft's programming efforts are prodigious. They have
so much work going on internally, its workforce is stretched to the
limit. A programmer with necessary skills for a particular module
might not be available at the present time, being occupied with another
project, which could be more important or urgent. Or he could be sick,
or on vacation, or a thousand other things.

All this conspires to slow down development of patches and other
software products. I'm sure it is pretty much the same in most
massively huge software houses.

> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>>That it may sometimes take Microsoft more time to address an issue
> >> >>>satisfactorily (after all, Windows is many millions of lines long, and
> >> >>>changes to one part of the code could have disasterous effects on other
> >> >>>parts of the code) only shows their carefullness in addressing the
> >> >>>issue.
> >> >>
> >> >>Microsoft' delayed release cycle is due entirely to their focus on
> >> >>business users to the exclusion of home users. They don't have to 'check
> >> >>millions of lines'--operating systems are way more modular than that.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Windows' modularity is not so extensive as you might think.
> >> NT's is.
> >>
> >> > After all
> >> > it has been written and re-written over and over for the last 20 years,
> >> NT shares very little with the previous 'MS-DOS' based versions.
> >
> > You would really be surprised if you actually knew how much they share
> > in common.
> I know how much they have in common--not very much.
>
> >
> >>
> >> > leaving layers and layers of bad programming on top of each other,
> >> > joined together by a few core routines.
> >> Excuse me? NT's kernel is one of it's strong features. Too bad Microsoft
> >> is so horrible at putting together a userspace and allowing the end
> >> users control over how their system operates.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Home users are more important to Microsoft than you might think, since
> >> > more home desktops are sold than business desktops.
> >> This is simply not true. The majority of Microsoft's sales are to
> >> businesses, the majority of volume for business desktops. Home users are
> >> but a minor portion of their revenue stream.
> >
> > Stud, there are many billions more private citizens on the earth than
> > there are corporations. I wonder if you really believe what you just
> > said, since it is so senseless.
> The market research firms seem to agree with me, after all... I base my
> conclusions on their data.
>
> >
> >>
> >> > Any more, it
> >> > doesn't really matter, anyway, since the same people using PCs at work
> >> > use PCs in their homes, too. So sell one desktop to a CEO, the next
> >> > thing you know, a hundred employees will buy one for their homes, too.
> >> > Business and home usage of PCs are complimentary as far as Microsoft is
> >> > concerned. They work together to produce more sales for Microsoft.
> >> Businesses buy a hell of a lot more boxes than Home users do. Home users
> >> will keep a system for many years--Businesses typically buy on a cycle.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>> And sometimes, there is just no satisfactory solution at the
> >> >>>present time which will not also break another important part of the
> >> >>>code (not to mention the further billions and billions of lines of code
> >> >>>of the thousands and thousands of other Windows applications.)
> >> >>
> >> >>You greatly exaggerate their task.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Do I? There are bugs in Windows XP that have been there since Windows
> >> > 95.
> >> Not in the core parts of the operating system, only aspects of the
> >> userspace that were shared with the 9x line. Underneath the veneer, XP
> >> and 95 are totally different. Not simply a 'rewrite' as you claim, a
> >> total replacement. Much like Apple's OS X when compared with OS 9--OS X
> >> was developed totally independently of OS 9.
> >>
> >> > Microsoft freely admits that some bugs are not easily-reducible.
> >> > They can't really be that lazy.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>>Finding fault with Microsoft for doing the same thing Apple does is
> >> >>>kind of hypocritical, don't you think?
> >> >>
> >> >>Apple's security track record isn't exactly confidence inspiring.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>>>The
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>common cliche applies here. Past performance is not an indication of
> >> >>>>>>future results.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>But a knowledge of the UNIX internals will tell you it will
> >> >>>>>be extremely difficult to accomplish.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>>The main point that I want to get through here is that Apple does
> >> >>>>>>take
> >> >>>>>>you a long way with respect to securing your system. I am extremely
> >> >>>>>>pleased about that. However, they do not take you all the way.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Some people don't like to dirty their hands. Some do. Does that make
> >> >>>one better than another? Or one platform better than another? Of
> >> >>>course not.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Let's face it: If one truly wants to be relatively safe in this world
> >> >>>(there is no perfect safety short of the grave), he must take his
> >> >>>security into his own hands, and take pro-active measures to protect
> >> >>>himself, his family, and his data.
> >> >>
> >> >>And should do that by moving to a platform that allows him that control.
> >> >>Like GNU/Linux.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>>Any man who implicitly puts his trust in a computer program, any
> >> >>>computer program(such as OS X or Windows XP), is a fool.
> >> >>
> >> >>Or a program like, say, an anti-virus scanner.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I agree. This is why it is necessary to use a suite of security
> >> > products on a Wintel if you want to be relatively secure. One program
> >> > can support another.
> >> This is absurd. Having to run multiple layers of viral detection for a
> >> *home system*?!
> >
> > Whether it is absurd or not, it is still true, nonetheless, and very
> > necessary, if one wants to keep safe. Especially if one's home system
> > is connected by broadband.
> I certainly don't--clamav is the only 'layer of viral protection' I have.

Anyway, an antivirus is only one piece of the puzzle. Viruses can get
in several ways. Network viruses can even get in without your
intervention, simply because you happen to be connected to the Internet
when one is scanning for available open ports. For this reason, it is
absolutely necessary to apply all necessary patches to the OS which
will take care of the vulnerabilities, and close the open ports.
Firewalls can also stop network viruses dead in their tracks, so
installing a firewall will be helpful (very helpful, in my opinon).
Other forms of anti-malware software take care of other types of
possible attack. Adding these can only increase your relative security
level. Adding an anti-trojan (though more an more AV packages include
trojan protection) will also help considerably toward keeping your file
structure intact.

Of course, you could use an "all in one" security appliance, but I have
yet to find one which covered all the bases.

And finally, PLEASE, I am not referring to Apples or Suns, or any other
Unix machine. I am referring to Windows. The measures I have outlined
work for Windows machines. They may or may not work for another
platform.

>
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>>An example: Recently, a friend of mine accessed his Credit Card
> >> >>>balance via the Web, and found that over $1500 in charges had been made
> >> >>>against his card for food and lodging in New York City. Thankfully, I
> >> >>>was his witness to not haveing been in NYC during the period (or in
> >> >>>fact any period) the charges were made, in addition to which he had
> >> >>>several independent ways of corroborating his whereabouts on the dates
> >> >>>in question. So it really only hurts his ego, and not his wallet. But
> >> >>>it did temporarily interrupt his financial plans.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Evidently, a hotel cashier somewhere was convinced enough by a computer
> >> >>>screen that someone who used my brother's name and credit card number
> >> >>>(obtained who knows how) was in fact my brother, and allowed him to
> >> >>>charge several days' services at his hotel to a card not truly his.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>>Please elaborate.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>>Regarding responses. Please don't waste intelligent people's time
> >> >>>>>>with
> >> >>>>>>Apple marketing rhetoric. If "OS/X is the number one Unix platform on
> >> >>>>>>the web" or "Mac users are the most savy users out there". Please
> >> >>>>>>back
> >> >>>>>>it up with respectable sources. Apple marketing is not one of those
> >> >>>>>>sources.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>And of course neither are any other companies rhetoric
> >> >>>>>admissable as evidence.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>So you are going to stop spouting Apple propaganda like a good little
> >> >>>Nazi from now on?.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>>We've had a Mac for two years now and so far I have yet to
> >> >>>>>waste any money on AV software, spybot removal tools or ad
> >> >>>>>removal tools that seem to plague M$ users.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>I assure you, money spent on AV/anti-malware software for Windows
> >> >>>machines is never wasted.
> >> >>
> >> >>Definitely true--it's nessesary on Windows.
> >
> > Whether it is necessary on Windows or not is totally irrelevant. If
> > virus writers aimed their destructive talents toward Macs and other
> > Unix machines, rather than Windows, Macs would be the ones which used
> > necessary security software.
> Yes, but the circumstances that drive their attentions would put the
> GNU/Linux community in a much, much stronger position by which to combat
> the malicious efforts.

That may or not be. The last time I looked, Microsoft was no part of
the GNU/Linux community.

>
> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>> It may or may not be wasted for Macs. The
> >> >>>jury is still out on that one.
> >> >>
> >> >>There's no point in buying AV software for OS X, unless your employer
> >> >>requires it.
> >
> > As I said, the jury is still out on that one. For all I know, your
> > machines are all zombies for Vlad in Eastern Europe. How would you
> > know, anyway?
> Keeping an eye on outgoing network traffic would be a big clue in to
> something going wrong in this respect. If my box were zombied, I'd see
> massive surges in network activity.
>
> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I certainly won't take your word for it. I will wait for a final
> >> > determination on the matter.
> >> Well, there are no OS X viruses. Why bother buying a virus scanner to
> >> protect against something that does not exist? The reason employers want
> >> them is to prevent the ('immune') Macs being used as attack vectors for
> >> Windows boxes.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>> But every time I have purchased a
> >> >>>Windows AV product, it paid for itself within 1 month.
> >> >>
> >> >>*That* is a sad state of affairs.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > How can saving money be a "sad state of affairs"?
> >> How did you save money? Does Norton AV comes with counterfieting
> >> software and I just didn't know it?
> >
> > It saved me money and time spent on trying to track down and remove
> > viruses manually, or reinstalling my OS after my HD gets messed up by
> > some scriptkiddie in Germany. I don't know about your time, but my
> > time is valuable to me.
> Wouldn't your time have been better spent installing a more secure
> platform in the first place?

That was not an option until recently, when my brother gave me his
year-old PowerMac G5.


>
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>In the last three years of using Windows some of the time (albiet for
> >> >>>>nothing of even marginal importance), I have spent exactly $0 on
> >> >>>>malware
> >> >>>>removal tools. Of course, it's easier and cheaper for me to simply
> >> >>>>maintain good backups and restore the system when there's a problem.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Everyone has their favorite way of handling malware, I guess. It's
> >> >>>easier for me to maintain a suite of decent anti-malware products than
> >> >>>it is to have to remove the malware once it gets into my files.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>You say "toh-may-do" while I say "tuh-mah-to".
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>It's better to just image your box once you have it setup properly and
> >> >>maintain strong backups.
> >
> > Again, it is better for YOU to image your box once and maintain strong
> > backups. You have nothing to say about what is or is not better for
> > ME. I will make that decision, not you.
> I feel perfectly content making your decisions for you. After all, my way
> is always the correct way.

Well, I won't quibble with you. If you want to make my decisions for
me, you are going to have to pay my bills too. Until then, I will make
my decisions for myself.

>
> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Again, that is your opinion. Millions of others have a different
> >> > opinion, many of them recognized experts in the field of security.
> >> >
> >> > What you SHOULD say if you want to be honest and balanced is:
> >> > "It's better for _me_ to just image "_my_ box once _ I _ have it set up
> >> > properly, and maintain strong backups." God forbid that you should
> >> > ever somehow be considered an expert on security. Your solution works
> >> > for you -- Great! I'm happy for you. However, my solution also works
> >> > for me. You should be happy for me, too, instead of making crazy talk
> >> > about the supposed superiority of doing things *your* way.
> >> Your way cost a hell of a lot more.
> >
> > Well, I don't spend all my money on women and alcohol. This leaves me
> > with more disposable wealth to spend on other things. Anyway, how I
> > spend my money is my business, not yours.
> It it, however, a good way for me to justify that my method is more
> effective. Same end, less cost. Sounds like a winner to me.

Of course, one would first have to pay the highly inflated prices of
Macintosh products to initiate such a change. I could not at the time.
I still can't.

As I keep trying to say, I am happy that your method is more effective
for you. My is highly effective for me, too.
>
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> > One of the _first_ things I learned when taking Programming 101 was
> >> > this:
> >> >
> >> > "There are /always/ *many* solutions to the *same* problem. One
> >> > possible solution out of a hundred is no better than the other
> >> > ninety-nine, as long as it works."
> >> This, I think, is part of the reason software quality has been dropping
> >> over the past 10 years. "Meh, it works. This other way is a lot better,
> >> but my way works so we keep it". Bad philosophy to hold when trying to
> >> create a strong product.
> >
> > Software quality has NOT been dropping over the past 10 years. It has
> > been INCREASING, as programmers increase in skill.
> Hardly. The talented programmers get sent to the unemployment line or
> shifted into managerial positions--the actual coding jobs being outsourced
> to semi-decent CS grads in India.
>
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Keeping this fantastic piece of wisdom in my consciousness has kept me
> >> > reasonably level-headed and unpredjudiced up till now. You would do
> >> > well to incorporate it into your thinking yourself. It will carry over
> >> > into the rest of your life, as well as make you less inclined to take
> >> > your stand with the bullies of this world.
> >> Feh, there's a reason I don't respect CS degress, for the most part.
> >> It's self-important BS philosophy like that, which yields sub-optimal
> >> products and apathetic people.
> >
> > Education is always a good thing, my friend. One should never stop
> > learning throughout his life.
> Did I say that? No, I said CS degrees are a waste of time. You'd get more
> education with something useless like philosophy.
>
>
> > I wish I had applied myself when younger
> > to obtain a CS degree.
> Good, you too can move to India and make $.50 an hour writing code.
>
> > I would definitely be making much more money
> > today.
> What do you do now? Clean floors for a living?
>
> > In addition, I would have more extensive knowledge about the
> > world, something which is always a good thing.
> From a *CS* degree? The only thing that would teach you is how to write
> code in C#, Java, and sometimes plain old C.

I already know how to code in C. I know a little about coding in C++.
C# is way beyond my level of skill, and not a part of my generation.

I don't particularly like Java. Too much typing.

--
Donald L. McDaniel
Please reply to the original thread.
=======================
.



Relevant Pages

  • SecurityFocus Microsoft Newsletter #176
    ... MICROSOFT VULNERABILITY SUMMARY ... Microsoft Windows XP HCP URI Handler Arbitrary Command Execu... ... PHPNuke Category Parameter SQL Injection Vulnerability ... Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer Vulnerability Identific... ...
    (Focus-Microsoft)
  • SecurityFocus Microsoft Newsletter #242
    ... MICROSOFT VULNERABILITY SUMMARY ... PostNuke Blocks Module Directory Traversal Vulnerability ... Groove Networks Groove Virtual Office COM Object Security By... ... The Microsoft Windows IPV6 TCP/IP stack is prone to a "loopback" condition initiated by sending a TCP packet with the "SYN" flag set and the source address and port spoofed to equal the destination source and port. ...
    (Focus-Microsoft)
  • Re: The Myth of the secure Mac
    ... >>> secure than Home. ... Though this really has nothing to do with security. ... >>> I, on the other hand, was speaking about overall Windows security, not ... I do believe that Microsoft could adjust their prices for the ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • RE: Religion... was RE: [Full-Disclosure] Re: January 15 is Personal Firewall Day, help the cause
    ... there is no A/V software for Linux that protects ... Of course, many of them do run A/V software, but it's to protect Windows ... In today's environment, software *must* be secure first, with usability added ... Microsoft systems take the opposite approach, ...
    (Full-Disclosure)
  • [NT] Cumulative Security Update for Internet Explorer (MS04-025)
    ... Get your security news from a reliable source. ... * Microsoft Windows NT Workstation 4.0 Service Pack 6a ... Navigation Method Cross-Domain Vulnerability ...
    (Securiteam)