Discussion:
BSD/Mac OS X = World's Safest Computing Environment
(too old to reply)
Derek Currie
2004-11-04 00:42:54 UTC
Permalink
Background: Mac OS X works on top of a CLI OS called Darwin, which is
based on a flavor of UNIX called BSD, more specifically FreeBSD.

The mi2g Intelligence Unit has just put out a news alert describing
BSD/Mac OS X as "The World's Safest Computing Environment."
London, UK - 2 November 2004, 02:30 GMT - The most comprehensive study ever
undertaken by the mi2g Intelligence Unit over 12 months reveals that the
world's safest and most secure 24/7 online computing environment - operating
system plus applications - is proving to be the Open Source platform of BSD
(Berkley Software Distribution) and the Mac OS X based on Darwin. This is
good news for Apple Computers(AAPL) whose shares have outperformed the
benchmark NASDAQ, S&P and Dow indices as well as Microsoft (MSFT) by over
100% in the last six months on the back of revived sales and profits. The
last twelve months have witnessed the deadliest annual period in terms of
malware - virus, worm and trojan - proliferation targeting Windows based
machines in which over 200 countries and tens of millions of computers
worldwide have been infected month-in month-out.
You can read the full news alert at:

http://www.mi2g.com/cgi/mi2g/press/021104.php

This continues an over two decade record of Apple providing the safest
OS on the computer market. It also demonstrates the importance of the
Open Source community. It has succeeded in the case of BSD and Darwin
where strictly proprietary OSes have failed. Mac OS X is also well known
as the most user-friendly UNIX GUI yet created.
"More and more smart individuals, government agencies and corporations are
shifting towards Apple and BSD environments in 2004 ... There is an
accelerating paradigm shift visible in 2004 and busy professionals have
spotted the benefits of Apple and BSD because they don't have the time to
cope with umpteen flavours of Linux or to wait for Microsoft's Longhorn when
Windows XP has proved to be a stumbling block in some well chronicled
instances."
Share and Enjoy,

:-Derek
--
"To create a new standard, it takes something thats not
just a little bit different, it takes something thats
really new and really captures peoples imagination and the
Macintosh, of all the machines I've ever seen, is the only
one that meets that standard." --Bill Gates
Derek Currie
2004-11-04 01:27:19 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by Derek Currie
The mi2g Intelligence Unit has just put out a news alert describing
BSD/Mac OS X as "The World's Safest Computing Environment."
Personal apologies for double-posting about this news alert. I note the
earlier posting 'OS X the "Most Secure" platform according to Mi2G."

I also have to note utter laughter at the arguments against this
article. They have no basis. Can anyone pretend that Windows security
has any comparison to that in Mac OS X? I was shocked to find how poor
the security was found to be on Linux systems, and would like to see a
competing study. But like it or not this mi2g report is useful and great
information for anyone who is SERIOUS (versus warz mongering) about
security.

BTW: I run a three year old, 600 users, 24/7 FTP server on Mac OS X
Server over the Internet with no breaches ever. :)

:-D
--
"To create a new standard, it takes something thats not
just a little bit different, it takes something thats
really new and really captures peoples imagination and the
Macintosh, of all the machines I've ever seen, is the only
one that meets that standard." --Bill Gates
Tim Smith
2004-11-04 02:59:30 UTC
Permalink
In article
But like it or not this mi2g report is useful and great information for
anyone who is SERIOUS (versus warz mongering) about security.
Can you find any security professional who takes Mi2G seriously?
--
--Tim Smith
Derek Currie
2004-11-04 08:49:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Smith
Can you find any security professional who takes Mi2G seriously?
Apparently there are a lot of people who have not taken mi2g seriously.
Read what they say in reply in their news alert. It is highly amusing,
Post by Tim Smith
For the record, neither mi2g Ltd nor the mi2g Intelligence
Unit have a business relationship with Apple Computers and
we do not own any shares in that corporation. Previously,
the mi2g data for one month was considered to be too small
a sample and not representative of the global environment
within which different types of entities - micro, small,
medium and large - exist. We have addressed those concerns
in the new study. The critics were against the previous
study which also came out in favour of Apple and BSD,
because the entrenched supporters of Linux and Windows felt
that mi2g was guilty of 'computing blasphemy'. In subsequent
months, mi2g's reputation was damaged on search engines and
bulletin boards. We would urge caution when reading
negative commentary against mi2g, which may have been
clandestinely funded, aided or abetted by a vendor or a
special interest group.
Blasphemy!

What security professional can afford to ignore the facts? What serious
security professional would discard such an important study only for the
sake of politics and misplaced loyalties? Do you perhaps wish to make
money off security processes that are entirely redundant in BSD/MOSX? We
all know the high cost of supporting Windows boxes, relative to a Mac.
Plenty of the fervor to flame Mac and promote Windows is only to support
bad habits in the business community, habits that typically provide
paychecks to otherwise unneeded IT support personnel.

Finding the safest computer OS is more important that warz mongering. My
point stands, as does that of this news alert, no matter what mud you
have to sling at mi2g.

:-Derek
--
"To create a new standard, it takes something thats not
just a little bit different, it takes something thats
really new and really captures peoples imagination and the
Macintosh, of all the machines I've ever seen, is the only
one that meets that standard." --Bill Gates
Tim Smith
2004-11-04 10:22:49 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by Derek Currie
Finding the safest computer OS is more important that warz mongering. My
point stands, as does that of this news alert, no matter what mud you have
to sling at mi2g.
OK, let's try it this way. Suppose next year, in response to that Mi2G
report, almost everyone switched to OS X. So, we end up with 98% of the
servers running OS X, 1% running Linux, and 1% running Windows. Question:
what would be the result?

Answer: OS X would then become the most breached OS, and, according to
Mi2G's methodology, the least insecure OS of the three.

*That* is why Mi2G's study is meaningless. Total number of breaches per OS,
which is what they report, tells you nothing about the security of the OSes.
What you want to know (and what they leave out) is *what* *percentage* of
the servers that were running each OS were breached.

How many major hosting companies run OS X? How many run Linux? If the two
OSes had the exact same level of security, Linux would suffer at least an
order of magnitude more breaches, simply because there are so many more
Linux servers out there.

What puzzles me is why I even need to explain this. A report that claims
Linux is massively less secure than Windows should have set off alarms for
you that should have tipped you off that the study is flawed. You should
have then Googled Mi2G, and found out that they are generally considered
to be somewhat of a joke among security professionals.
--
--Tim Smith
Dawg Tail
2004-11-05 21:27:41 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 10:22:49 GMT, Tim Smith
Post by Derek Currie
In article
Post by Derek Currie
Finding the safest computer OS is more important that warz mongering. My
point stands, as does that of this news alert, no matter what mud you have
to sling at mi2g.
OK, let's try it this way. Suppose next year, in response to that Mi2G
report, almost everyone switched to OS X. So, we end up with 98% of the
what would be the result?
Answer: OS X would then become the most breached OS, and, according to
Mi2G's methodology, the least insecure OS of the three.
*That* is why Mi2G's study is meaningless. Total number of breaches per OS,
which is what they report, tells you nothing about the security of the OSes.
What you want to know (and what they leave out) is *what* *percentage* of
the servers that were running each OS were breached.
How many major hosting companies run OS X? How many run Linux? If the two
OSes had the exact same level of security, Linux would suffer at least an
order of magnitude more breaches, simply because there are so many more
Linux servers out there.
What puzzles me is why I even need to explain this.
Go easy on them. They haven't quite got the grasp of simple, logical
concepts yet. Someday they might. But for now expect that this simple
concept will evade them for a while longer.
Post by Derek Currie
A report that claims
Linux is massively less secure than Windows should have set off alarms for
you that should have tipped you off that the study is flawed. You should
have then Googled Mi2G, and found out that they are generally considered
to be somewhat of a joke among security professionals.
GreyCloud
2004-11-06 01:00:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dawg Tail
On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 10:22:49 GMT, Tim Smith
Post by Derek Currie
In article
Post by Derek Currie
Finding the safest computer OS is more important that warz mongering. My
point stands, as does that of this news alert, no matter what mud you have
to sling at mi2g.
OK, let's try it this way. Suppose next year, in response to that Mi2G
report, almost everyone switched to OS X. So, we end up with 98% of the
what would be the result?
Answer: OS X would then become the most breached OS, and, according to
Mi2G's methodology, the least insecure OS of the three.
*That* is why Mi2G's study is meaningless. Total number of breaches per OS,
which is what they report, tells you nothing about the security of the OSes.
What you want to know (and what they leave out) is *what* *percentage* of
the servers that were running each OS were breached.
How many major hosting companies run OS X? How many run Linux? If the two
OSes had the exact same level of security, Linux would suffer at least an
order of magnitude more breaches, simply because there are so many more
Linux servers out there.
What puzzles me is why I even need to explain this.
Go easy on them.
Them who?
Post by Dawg Tail
They haven't quite got the grasp of simple, logical
concepts yet.
Apparently this has flown over your head by miles. When are you
wintrolls going to figure it out yet?
Post by Dawg Tail
Someday they might. But for now expect that this simple
concept will evade them for a while longer.
Them who?
--
---------------------------------
Th3 G0ld3n Yrs Sux0r
Rick G
2004-11-06 01:03:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by GreyCloud
Post by Dawg Tail
On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 10:22:49 GMT, Tim Smith
Post by Derek Currie
In article
Post by Derek Currie
Finding the safest computer OS is more important that warz mongering. My
point stands, as does that of this news alert, no matter what mud you have
to sling at mi2g.
OK, let's try it this way. Suppose next year, in response to that Mi2G
report, almost everyone switched to OS X. So, we end up with 98% of the
what would be the result?
Answer: OS X would then become the most breached OS, and, according to
Mi2G's methodology, the least insecure OS of the three.
*That* is why Mi2G's study is meaningless. Total number of breaches per OS,
which is what they report, tells you nothing about the security of the OSes.
What you want to know (and what they leave out) is *what* *percentage* of
the servers that were running each OS were breached.
How many major hosting companies run OS X? How many run Linux? If the two
OSes had the exact same level of security, Linux would suffer at least an
order of magnitude more breaches, simply because there are so many more
Linux servers out there.
What puzzles me is why I even need to explain this.
Go easy on them.
Them who?
You know, *that* them.
Post by GreyCloud
Post by Dawg Tail
They haven't quite got the grasp of simple, logical
concepts yet.
Apparently this has flown over your head by miles. When are you
wintrolls going to figure it out yet?
Post by Dawg Tail
Someday they might. But for now expect that this simple
concept will evade them for a while longer.
Them who?
Sorry, I can't me more specific. *They* might be monitoring this group.

BTW, *they* are not in anyway affiliated with *them*.

;)
--
Rick...
Dawg Tail
2004-11-06 02:12:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by GreyCloud
Post by Dawg Tail
On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 10:22:49 GMT, Tim Smith
Post by Derek Currie
In article
Post by Derek Currie
Finding the safest computer OS is more important that warz mongering. My
point stands, as does that of this news alert, no matter what mud you have
to sling at mi2g.
OK, let's try it this way. Suppose next year, in response to that Mi2G
report, almost everyone switched to OS X. So, we end up with 98% of the
what would be the result?
Answer: OS X would then become the most breached OS, and, according to
Mi2G's methodology, the least insecure OS of the three.
*That* is why Mi2G's study is meaningless. Total number of breaches per OS,
which is what they report, tells you nothing about the security of the OSes.
What you want to know (and what they leave out) is *what* *percentage* of
the servers that were running each OS were breached.
How many major hosting companies run OS X? How many run Linux? If the two
OSes had the exact same level of security, Linux would suffer at least an
order of magnitude more breaches, simply because there are so many more
Linux servers out there.
What puzzles me is why I even need to explain this.
Go easy on them.
Them who?
Those who ignore that Windows' huge market share makes it a more
attractive target to malware writers. And those who ignore that the
Macs paltry < 2% market share makes it a less desirable target.
Like....you.
Post by GreyCloud
Post by Dawg Tail
They haven't quite got the grasp of simple, logical
concepts yet.
Apparently this has flown over your head by miles. When are you
wintrolls going to figure it out yet?
Maybe when you provide a factual argument that supports your position
instead of labelling anyone who disagrees with you a "wintroll". But
since you've been unable to make a factual rebuttle (labelling someone
a Microsoft "sock puppet" and "Guawffs" don't qualify as a factual
rebuttle) I guess I'll just remain outside of the Mac apologist "in
the know" club.
Post by GreyCloud
Post by Dawg Tail
Someday they might. But for now expect that this simple
concept will evade them for a while longer.
Them who?
GreyCloud
2004-11-07 04:29:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dawg Tail
Post by GreyCloud
Post by Dawg Tail
On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 10:22:49 GMT, Tim Smith
Post by Derek Currie
In article
Post by Derek Currie
Finding the safest computer OS is more important that warz mongering. My
point stands, as does that of this news alert, no matter what mud you have
to sling at mi2g.
OK, let's try it this way. Suppose next year, in response to that Mi2G
report, almost everyone switched to OS X. So, we end up with 98% of the
what would be the result?
Answer: OS X would then become the most breached OS, and, according to
Mi2G's methodology, the least insecure OS of the three.
*That* is why Mi2G's study is meaningless. Total number of breaches per OS,
which is what they report, tells you nothing about the security of the OSes.
What you want to know (and what they leave out) is *what* *percentage* of
the servers that were running each OS were breached.
How many major hosting companies run OS X? How many run Linux? If the two
OSes had the exact same level of security, Linux would suffer at least an
order of magnitude more breaches, simply because there are so many more
Linux servers out there.
What puzzles me is why I even need to explain this.
Go easy on them.
Them who?
Those who ignore that Windows' huge market share makes it a more
attractive target to malware writers.
I'll said it once and I'll say it again. Market share has nothing to do
with the ease of writing malware for Windows. How come a high school
student can write malware for Windows then? I'll tell you how... it is
the inherent poor design of windows that makes it easy to do.
Post by Dawg Tail
And those who ignore that the
Macs paltry < 2% market share makes it a less desirable target.
Like....you.
Guffaw!! Clueless wintroll as ever. Nice excuse but no cigar.
Post by Dawg Tail
Post by GreyCloud
Post by Dawg Tail
They haven't quite got the grasp of simple, logical
concepts yet.
Apparently this has flown over your head by miles. When are you
wintrolls going to figure it out yet?
Maybe when you provide a factual argument that supports your position
instead of labelling anyone who disagrees with you a "wintroll". But
since you've been unable to make a factual rebuttle (labelling someone
a Microsoft "sock puppet" and "Guawffs" don't qualify as a factual
rebuttle) I guess I'll just remain outside of the Mac apologist "in
the know" club.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAA!!! When have you ever cited any facts?
So far, all you've been able to do is parrot the M$ FUD line. You've
made no rebuttals or provided any proofs. That makes you a bonafide
wintroll.
--
---------------------------------
Th3 G0ld3n Yrs Sux0r
Dawg Tail
2004-11-07 16:26:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by GreyCloud
Post by Dawg Tail
Post by GreyCloud
Post by Dawg Tail
On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 10:22:49 GMT, Tim Smith
Post by Derek Currie
In article
Post by Derek Currie
Finding the safest computer OS is more important that warz mongering. My
point stands, as does that of this news alert, no matter what mud you have
to sling at mi2g.
OK, let's try it this way. Suppose next year, in response to that Mi2G
report, almost everyone switched to OS X. So, we end up with 98% of the
what would be the result?
Answer: OS X would then become the most breached OS, and, according to
Mi2G's methodology, the least insecure OS of the three.
*That* is why Mi2G's study is meaningless. Total number of breaches per OS,
which is what they report, tells you nothing about the security of the OSes.
What you want to know (and what they leave out) is *what* *percentage* of
the servers that were running each OS were breached.
How many major hosting companies run OS X? How many run Linux? If the two
OSes had the exact same level of security, Linux would suffer at least an
order of magnitude more breaches, simply because there are so many more
Linux servers out there.
What puzzles me is why I even need to explain this.
Go easy on them.
Them who?
Those who ignore that Windows' huge market share makes it a more
attractive target to malware writers.
I'll said it once and I'll say it again.
Restating a strawman doesn't make it any less of a strawman.
Post by GreyCloud
Market share has nothing to do with the ease of writing malware for Windows.
And had I made such a claim you might have a point. As I haven't
you've only succeeded in tearing down your own stawman.
Post by GreyCloud
How come a high school student can write malware for Windows then? I'll tell you
how... it is the inherent poor design of windows that makes it easy to do.
So when can I expect the part where you tell me how?
Post by GreyCloud
Post by Dawg Tail
And those who ignore that the
Macs paltry < 2% market share makes it a less desirable target.
Like....you.
Guffaw!! Clueless wintroll as ever. Nice excuse but no cigar.
So you're denying that a small market share makes a platform less
desirable to develop software for?
Post by GreyCloud
Post by Dawg Tail
Post by GreyCloud
Post by Dawg Tail
They haven't quite got the grasp of simple, logical
concepts yet.
Apparently this has flown over your head by miles. When are you
wintrolls going to figure it out yet?
Maybe when you provide a factual argument that supports your position
instead of labelling anyone who disagrees with you a "wintroll". But
since you've been unable to make a factual rebuttle (labelling someone
a Microsoft "sock puppet" and "Guawffs" don't qualify as a factual
rebuttle) I guess I'll just remain outside of the Mac apologist "in
the know" club.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAA!!! When have you ever cited any facts?
Yeah...I've never provided a single fact. Geez, while you may not
agree with what I say a claim that I've not provided any facts just
makes you look desperate.
Post by GreyCloud
So far, all you've been able to do is parrot the M$ FUD line. You've
made no rebuttals or provided any proofs. That makes you a bonafide
wintroll.
All you've been able to do is parrot how I'm a wintroll. Few facts to
be found from you.
GreyCloud
2004-11-07 18:14:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dawg Tail
Post by GreyCloud
Post by Dawg Tail
Post by GreyCloud
Post by Dawg Tail
On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 10:22:49 GMT, Tim Smith
Post by Derek Currie
In article
Post by Derek Currie
Finding the safest computer OS is more important that warz mongering. My
point stands, as does that of this news alert, no matter what mud you have
to sling at mi2g.
OK, let's try it this way. Suppose next year, in response to that Mi2G
report, almost everyone switched to OS X. So, we end up with 98% of the
what would be the result?
Answer: OS X would then become the most breached OS, and, according to
Mi2G's methodology, the least insecure OS of the three.
*That* is why Mi2G's study is meaningless. Total number of breaches per OS,
which is what they report, tells you nothing about the security of the OSes.
What you want to know (and what they leave out) is *what* *percentage* of
the servers that were running each OS were breached.
How many major hosting companies run OS X? How many run Linux? If the two
OSes had the exact same level of security, Linux would suffer at least an
order of magnitude more breaches, simply because there are so many more
Linux servers out there.
What puzzles me is why I even need to explain this.
Go easy on them.
Them who?
Those who ignore that Windows' huge market share makes it a more
attractive target to malware writers.
I'll said it once and I'll say it again.
Restating a strawman doesn't make it any less of a strawman.
There isn't any strawmen here, except you.
Post by Dawg Tail
Post by GreyCloud
Market share has nothing to do with the ease of writing malware for Windows.
And had I made such a claim you might have a point.
And you did make that claim. Squirming in your seat won't do you any
good. Yeah, just keep doing the sock-puppet shuffle.
Post by Dawg Tail
As I haven't
you've only succeeded in tearing down your own stawman.
Guffaw!! You're doing the sock-puppet shuffle... side stepping and
squirming.
Post by Dawg Tail
Post by GreyCloud
How come a high school student can write malware for Windows then? I'll tell you
how... it is the inherent poor design of windows that makes it easy to do.
So when can I expect the part where you tell me how?
Guffaw!! Clueless idiot you are. Read the newspapers sometime. There
are articles all over the place.

http://www.cbchs.org/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=5&MMN_position=53:53

One of many reports on Google.
Post by Dawg Tail
Post by GreyCloud
Post by Dawg Tail
And those who ignore that the
Macs paltry < 2% market share makes it a less desirable target.
Like....you.
Guffaw!! Clueless wintroll as ever. Nice excuse but no cigar.
So you're denying that a small market share makes a platform less
desirable to develop software for?
You missed the point entirely. M$ is a known monopoly... that
translates into holding the greatest market share for their niche. But
there is no connection of market share to a poorly designed o/s that is
prone to viruses and malware. Why are there no viruses for VMS then?
VMS has a good market share for their niche... something that M$ tried
to gain entry to but couldn't deliver a viable o/s.

http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/os/story/0,10801,97032,00.html?nas=AM-97032

"OpenVMS uptimes can be measured in years," says Stenz. "This is
certainly preferable to a culture of rebooting and disruption that
plagues other platforms due to viruses, Trojans, denial-of-service
attacks and endless patching of systems."
Post by Dawg Tail
Post by GreyCloud
Post by Dawg Tail
Post by GreyCloud
Post by Dawg Tail
They haven't quite got the grasp of simple, logical
concepts yet.
Apparently this has flown over your head by miles. When are you
wintrolls going to figure it out yet?
Maybe when you provide a factual argument that supports your position
instead of labelling anyone who disagrees with you a "wintroll". But
since you've been unable to make a factual rebuttle (labelling someone
a Microsoft "sock puppet" and "Guawffs" don't qualify as a factual
rebuttle) I guess I'll just remain outside of the Mac apologist "in
the know" club.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAA!!! When have you ever cited any facts?
Yeah...I've never provided a single fact. Geez, while you may not
agree with what I say a claim that I've not provided any facts just
makes you look desperate.
You still haven't provided any verifiable facts. Doesn't make me look
desperate... it makes you look like the fool that you are.
Post by Dawg Tail
Post by GreyCloud
So far, all you've been able to do is parrot the M$ FUD line. You've
made no rebuttals or provided any proofs. That makes you a bonafide
wintroll.
All you've been able to do is parrot how I'm a wintroll. Few facts to
be found from you.
Only that you are a fool. Obviously, windows made you stupid.
--
---------------------------------
Th3 G0ld3n Yrs Sux0r
Dawg Tail
2004-11-07 19:33:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by GreyCloud
Post by Dawg Tail
Post by GreyCloud
Post by Dawg Tail
Post by GreyCloud
Post by Dawg Tail
On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 10:22:49 GMT, Tim Smith
Post by Derek Currie
In article
Post by Derek Currie
Finding the safest computer OS is more important that warz mongering. My
point stands, as does that of this news alert, no matter what mud you have
to sling at mi2g.
OK, let's try it this way. Suppose next year, in response to that Mi2G
report, almost everyone switched to OS X. So, we end up with 98% of the
what would be the result?
Answer: OS X would then become the most breached OS, and, according to
Mi2G's methodology, the least insecure OS of the three.
*That* is why Mi2G's study is meaningless. Total number of breaches per OS,
which is what they report, tells you nothing about the security of the OSes.
What you want to know (and what they leave out) is *what* *percentage* of
the servers that were running each OS were breached.
How many major hosting companies run OS X? How many run Linux? If the two
OSes had the exact same level of security, Linux would suffer at least an
order of magnitude more breaches, simply because there are so many more
Linux servers out there.
What puzzles me is why I even need to explain this.
Go easy on them.
Them who?
Those who ignore that Windows' huge market share makes it a more
attractive target to malware writers.
I'll said it once and I'll say it again.
Restating a strawman doesn't make it any less of a strawman.
There isn't any strawmen here, except you.
Your "arguments". That is when you're not making the "argument" with
"you're a sock puppet" and "guawff's".
Post by GreyCloud
Post by Dawg Tail
Post by GreyCloud
Market share has nothing to do with the ease of writing malware for Windows.
And had I made such a claim you might have a point.
And you did make that claim.
Then you'll be so good as to provide a quotation? Yeah right...in my
dreams!
Post by GreyCloud
Squirming in your seat won't do you any good.
Lying doesn't do you any good.
Post by GreyCloud
Yeah, just keep doing the sock-puppet shuffle.
So you keep saying. And that's about the only thing you say.
Post by GreyCloud
Post by Dawg Tail
As I haven't
you've only succeeded in tearing down your own stawman.
Guffaw!! You're doing the sock-puppet shuffle... side stepping and
squirming.
And you're doing the Mac apologist lying.
Post by GreyCloud
Post by Dawg Tail
Post by GreyCloud
How come a high school student can write malware for Windows then? I'll tell you
how... it is the inherent poor design of windows that makes it easy to do.
So when can I expect the part where you tell me how?
Guffaw!! Clueless idiot you are. Read the newspapers sometime. There
are articles all over the place.
http://www.cbchs.org/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=5&MMN_position=53:53
One of many reports on Google.
Post by Dawg Tail
Post by GreyCloud
Post by Dawg Tail
And those who ignore that the
Macs paltry < 2% market share makes it a less desirable target.
Like....you.
Guffaw!! Clueless wintroll as ever. Nice excuse but no cigar.
So you're denying that a small market share makes a platform less
desirable to develop software for?
You missed the point entirely. M$ is a known monopoly... that
translates into holding the greatest market share for their niche. But
there is no connection of market share to a poorly designed o/s that is
prone to viruses and malware. Why are there no viruses for VMS then?
VMS has a good market share for their niche... something that M$ tried
to gain entry to but couldn't deliver a viable o/s.
http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/os/story/0,10801,97032,00.html?nas=AM-97032
"OpenVMS uptimes can be measured in years," says Stenz. "This is
certainly preferable to a culture of rebooting and disruption that
plagues other platforms due to viruses, Trojans, denial-of-service
attacks and endless patching of systems."
What does VMS have to do in a discussion about the strengths and
weaknesses of Windows compared to OS X? You keep obsfucating your lack
of argument with pro-VMS discussions. While VMS might be all that
sliced bread ain't it isn't relavent to the discussion.
Post by GreyCloud
Post by Dawg Tail
Post by GreyCloud
Post by Dawg Tail
Post by GreyCloud
Post by Dawg Tail
They haven't quite got the grasp of simple, logical
concepts yet.
Apparently this has flown over your head by miles. When are you
wintrolls going to figure it out yet?
Maybe when you provide a factual argument that supports your position
instead of labelling anyone who disagrees with you a "wintroll". But
since you've been unable to make a factual rebuttle (labelling someone
a Microsoft "sock puppet" and "Guawffs" don't qualify as a factual
rebuttle) I guess I'll just remain outside of the Mac apologist "in
the know" club.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAA!!! When have you ever cited any facts?
Yeah...I've never provided a single fact. Geez, while you may not
agree with what I say a claim that I've not provided any facts just
makes you look desperate.
You still haven't provided any verifiable facts.
See, the problem with verifiable facts is that you have to verify
them. You've demonstrated countless times that you're unwilling to do
so. Otherwise you'd realize that what I say is accurate. But you'd
rather bury your head in the sand.
Post by GreyCloud
Doesn't make me look desperate... it makes you look like the fool that you are.
Post by Dawg Tail
Post by GreyCloud
So far, all you've been able to do is parrot the M$ FUD line. You've
made no rebuttals or provided any proofs. That makes you a bonafide
wintroll.
All you've been able to do is parrot how I'm a wintroll. Few facts to
be found from you.
Only that you are a fool. Obviously, windows made you stupid.
GreyCloud
2004-11-08 04:58:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dawg Tail
Post by GreyCloud
Post by Dawg Tail
Post by GreyCloud
Post by Dawg Tail
Post by GreyCloud
Post by Dawg Tail
On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 10:22:49 GMT, Tim Smith
Post by Derek Currie
In article
Post by Derek Currie
Finding the safest computer OS is more important that warz mongering. My
point stands, as does that of this news alert, no matter what mud you have
to sling at mi2g.
OK, let's try it this way. Suppose next year, in response to that Mi2G
report, almost everyone switched to OS X. So, we end up with 98% of the
what would be the result?
Answer: OS X would then become the most breached OS, and, according to
Mi2G's methodology, the least insecure OS of the three.
*That* is why Mi2G's study is meaningless. Total number of breaches per OS,
which is what they report, tells you nothing about the security of the OSes.
What you want to know (and what they leave out) is *what* *percentage* of
the servers that were running each OS were breached.
How many major hosting companies run OS X? How many run Linux? If the two
OSes had the exact same level of security, Linux would suffer at least an
order of magnitude more breaches, simply because there are so many more
Linux servers out there.
What puzzles me is why I even need to explain this.
Go easy on them.
Them who?
Those who ignore that Windows' huge market share makes it a more
attractive target to malware writers.
I'll said it once and I'll say it again.
Restating a strawman doesn't make it any less of a strawman.
There isn't any strawmen here, except you.
Your "arguments". That is when you're not making the "argument" with
"you're a sock puppet" and "guawff's".
Post by GreyCloud
Post by Dawg Tail
Post by GreyCloud
Market share has nothing to do with the ease of writing malware for Windows.
And had I made such a claim you might have a point.
And you did make that claim.
Then you'll be so good as to provide a quotation? Yeah right...in my
dreams!
Post by GreyCloud
Squirming in your seat won't do you any good.
Lying doesn't do you any good.
Post by GreyCloud
Yeah, just keep doing the sock-puppet shuffle.
So you keep saying. And that's about the only thing you say.
Post by GreyCloud
Post by Dawg Tail
As I haven't
you've only succeeded in tearing down your own stawman.
Guffaw!! You're doing the sock-puppet shuffle... side stepping and
squirming.
And you're doing the Mac apologist lying.
Post by GreyCloud
Post by Dawg Tail
Post by GreyCloud
How come a high school student can write malware for Windows then? I'll tell you
how... it is the inherent poor design of windows that makes it easy to do.
So when can I expect the part where you tell me how?
Guffaw!! Clueless idiot you are. Read the newspapers sometime. There
are articles all over the place.
http://www.cbchs.org/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=5&MMN_position=53:53
One of many reports on Google.
Post by Dawg Tail
Post by GreyCloud
Post by Dawg Tail
And those who ignore that the
Macs paltry < 2% market share makes it a less desirable target.
Like....you.
Guffaw!! Clueless wintroll as ever. Nice excuse but no cigar.
So you're denying that a small market share makes a platform less
desirable to develop software for?
You missed the point entirely. M$ is a known monopoly... that
translates into holding the greatest market share for their niche. But
there is no connection of market share to a poorly designed o/s that is
prone to viruses and malware. Why are there no viruses for VMS then?
VMS has a good market share for their niche... something that M$ tried
to gain entry to but couldn't deliver a viable o/s.
http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/os/story/0,10801,97032,00.html?nas=AM-97032
"OpenVMS uptimes can be measured in years," says Stenz. "This is
certainly preferable to a culture of rebooting and disruption that
plagues other platforms due to viruses, Trojans, denial-of-service
attacks and endless patching of systems."
What does VMS have to do in a discussion about the strengths and
weaknesses of Windows compared to OS X? You keep obsfucating your lack
of argument with pro-VMS discussions. While VMS might be all that
sliced bread ain't it isn't relavent to the discussion.
Post by GreyCloud
Post by Dawg Tail
Post by GreyCloud
Post by Dawg Tail
Post by GreyCloud
Post by Dawg Tail
They haven't quite got the grasp of simple, logical
concepts yet.
Apparently this has flown over your head by miles. When are you
wintrolls going to figure it out yet?
Maybe when you provide a factual argument that supports your position
instead of labelling anyone who disagrees with you a "wintroll". But
since you've been unable to make a factual rebuttle (labelling someone
a Microsoft "sock puppet" and "Guawffs" don't qualify as a factual
rebuttle) I guess I'll just remain outside of the Mac apologist "in
the know" club.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAA!!! When have you ever cited any facts?
Yeah...I've never provided a single fact. Geez, while you may not
agree with what I say a claim that I've not provided any facts just
makes you look desperate.
You still haven't provided any verifiable facts.
See, the problem with verifiable facts is that you have to verify
them. You've demonstrated countless times that you're unwilling to do
so. Otherwise you'd realize that what I say is accurate. But you'd
rather bury your head in the sand.
Still twisting and squirming doing the sock-puppet shuffle I see.

Nothing new from a proven liar and wintroll.
--
---------------------------------
Th3 G0ld3n Yrs Sux0r
GreyCloud
2004-11-06 00:58:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Derek Currie
In article
Post by Derek Currie
Finding the safest computer OS is more important that warz mongering. My
point stands, as does that of this news alert, no matter what mud you have
to sling at mi2g.
OK, let's try it this way. Suppose next year, in response to that Mi2G
report, almost everyone switched to OS X. So, we end up with 98% of the
what would be the result?
Answer: OS X would then become the most breached OS, and, according to
Mi2G's methodology, the least insecure OS of the three.
One would think so, but don't you think it is more the problem of a
poorly designed O/S like XP than anything else? Market share is a myth
when M$ is selling a poorly designed o/s. How are the virus writers
going to get around a well designed o/s that has security in mind?
Post by Derek Currie
*That* is why Mi2G's study is meaningless. Total number of breaches per OS,
which is what they report, tells you nothing about the security of the OSes.
What you want to know (and what they leave out) is *what* *percentage* of
the servers that were running each OS were breached.
Best to have them take all oses to DEFCON convention in Las Vegas and
let the hackers have their way the o/ses.
Then you'll have your answers.
Right now, why is it so easy for a high school student to hack into a M$
system?
Post by Derek Currie
How many major hosting companies run OS X? How many run Linux? If the two
OSes had the exact same level of security, Linux would suffer at least an
order of magnitude more breaches, simply because there are so many more
Linux servers out there.
The latest Linux kernel isn't the same as the OS X kernel. They are
completely different. The next level are the commands. These also have
to pass muster. The linux development tree and the BSD are two and
seperate distinct trees.
Post by Derek Currie
What puzzles me is why I even need to explain this. A report that claims
Linux is massively less secure than Windows should have set off alarms for
you that should have tipped you off that the study is flawed.
Agreed. Follow the money and you'll find M$ funding it.
M$ is fearful of their market share.
Post by Derek Currie
You should
have then Googled Mi2G, and found out that they are generally considered
to be somewhat of a joke among security professionals.
Could very well be. So far as I know, SELinux from NSA is the most
secure as UNIX like o/ses go. Then you have better ones.
--
---------------------------------
Th3 G0ld3n Yrs Sux0r
tony
2004-12-07 14:03:39 UTC
Permalink
Tony wrote

Can't hep but wonder...why does a corporation ike M$ not know
whathappens ifyou upgrade from win2k to WinXP and loose the sound
because teh Plug and Play device Enumerator says error 31...has no
drivers. The troubled-Shooter has no referenceto it and the fixI found
on teh internet isno fix at all for this computer. Aren't there supposed
to beupdates and fixes...this problem is widespread and seems to require
either reloading teh win2k or a new winXp. Not a good situation.

Microsoft $uck$
Post by Derek Currie
Background: Mac OS X works on top of a CLI OS called Darwin, which is
based on a flavor of UNIX called BSD, more specifically FreeBSD.
The mi2g Intelligence Unit has just put out a news alert describing
BSD/Mac OS X as "The World's Safest Computing Environment."
London, UK - 2 November 2004, 02:30 GMT - The most comprehensive study ever
undertaken by the mi2g Intelligence Unit over 12 months reveals that the
world's safest and most secure 24/7 online computing environment - operating
system plus applications - is proving to be the Open Source platform of BSD
(Berkley Software Distribution) and the Mac OS X based on Darwin. This is
good news for Apple Computers(AAPL) whose shares have outperformed the
benchmark NASDAQ, S&P and Dow indices as well as Microsoft (MSFT) by over
100% in the last six months on the back of revived sales and profits. The
last twelve months have witnessed the deadliest annual period in terms of
malware - virus, worm and trojan - proliferation targeting Windows based
machines in which over 200 countries and tens of millions of computers
worldwide have been infected month-in month-out.
http://www.mi2g.com/cgi/mi2g/press/021104.php
This continues an over two decade record of Apple providing the safest
OS on the computer market. It also demonstrates the importance of the
Open Source community. It has succeeded in the case of BSD and Darwin
where strictly proprietary OSes have failed. Mac OS X is also well known
as the most user-friendly UNIX GUI yet created.
"More and more smart individuals, government agencies and corporations are
shifting towards Apple and BSD environments in 2004 ... There is an
accelerating paradigm shift visible in 2004 and busy professionals have
spotted the benefits of Apple and BSD because they don't have the time to
cope with umpteen flavours of Linux or to wait for Microsoft's Longhorn when
Windows XP has proved to be a stumbling block in some well chronicled
instances."
Share and Enjoy,
:-Derek
Loading...