Re: New Patch Fixes 43 Flaws In OS X, Many Serious

In article <C08B9791.4E225%SNIT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Snit <SNIT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Josh McKee" <jtmckee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> stated in post
jtmckee-4D833F.14060713052006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 5/13/06 1:06 PM:

In article <C08B8115.4E20A%SNIT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Snit <SNIT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Josh McKee" <jtmckee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> stated in post
jtmckee-56A673.13070813052006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 5/13/06 12:07
PM:

In article <C08B7314.4E1F7%SNIT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Snit <SNIT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Josh McKee" <jtmckee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> stated in post
jtmckee-CA1C36.10261213052006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 5/13/06 9:26
AM:

In article <dIm9g.1933$y4.51@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Oxford <colalovesosx@xxxxxxx> wrote:

"John Slade" <hhitman86@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Here is a story about potentially dangerous security flaws in OS
X
and
Quicktume that Apple has just patched. Now my advice is to get the
patch
and
don't listen to those who want you to ignore the security holes in OS
X.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/zd/20060512/tc_zd/178140

A vocabulary word, clearly over Slade's head:

"Potentially"

1. Capable of being but not yet in existence; latent: a potential
problem.

How could it have potential? According to Mac zealots OS X is secure
and
resistant to security issues.

Please provide a quote of someone stating that... in those words or
others.

Look at Oxfords post.

He does not say that Macs are resistant to security issues at least not in
that post.

What do you think was the purpose of his post if not to imply that?

That this is a *potential* for problems, not that it is necessarily a
problem. That is not at all the same thing as saying Macs are resistant to
security issues.


It's had the *potential* for problems going on five years now. Mac
zealots like to point out that over that five years not a single
occurrence of malware can be found. Given this it's obvious that Mac
zealots believe that OS X is resistant to security issues. There's no
other logical conclusion. Or is there?

Josh
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: New Patch Fixes 43 Flaws In OS X, Many Serious
    ... Snit wrote: ... don't listen to those who want you to ignore the security holes in OS ... According to Mac zealots OS X is secure ... He does not say that Macs are resistant to security issues at least not in ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: New Patch Fixes 43 Flaws In OS X, Many Serious
    ... According to Mac zealots OS X is secure ... He does not say that Macs are resistant to security issues at least not ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: New Patch Fixes 43 Flaws In OS X, Many Serious
    ... Snit wrote: ... don't listen to those who want you to ignore the security holes in OS ... According to Mac zealots OS X is secure ... He does not say that Macs are resistant to security issues at least not in ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: New Patch Fixes 43 Flaws In OS X, Many Serious
    ... Snit wrote: ... Oxford wrote: ... don't listen to those who want you to ignore the security holes in OS ... He does not say that Macs are resistant to security issues at least not in ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: New Patch Fixes 43 Flaws In OS X, Many Serious
    ... Snit wrote: ... Oxford wrote: ... don't listen to those who want you to ignore the security holes in OS ... He does not say that Macs are resistant to security issues at least not in ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)