Buying a computer, should I get a Mac?

[paul cottingham]

WHEN viruses become prevalent for Mac, it will be a huge issue, because most Mac users believe they dont need antivirus software. The only thing slowing that down is the yet relatively small user base for Mac, the virus writers just dont waste their time, as havoc is their goal. No real havoc to create with such a small user base.

My favorite Mac joke has always been.... "Macs are for people that can't use a PC"

I have said this before. Macs are nowhere near as vulnerable 'cause their security model wasn't created by gerbils. Macs run over FreeBSD which is very secure, as opposed to ANY Microsoft operating system, which, by design, are based on an inherently flawed security model. We had a FreeBSD mail server running for 6 years without a single incursion, despite all the attempts on it. Try that with a Microsoft server of any stripe. Virus writers exploit the mess that is the MS security model. Writing virii for any *NIX style operating system is MUCH harder. That being said, the graphical interface of OSX (which was written by Apple) may be more vulnerable.

[Phil Thien]

I have said this before. Macs are nowhere near as vulnerable 'cause their security model wasn't created by gerbils. Macs run over FreeBSD which is very secure, as opposed to ANY Microsoft operating system, which, by design, are based on an inherently flawed security model. We had a FreeBSD mail server running for 6 years without a single incursion, despite all the attempts on it. Try that with a Microsoft server of any stripe. Virus writers exploit the mess that is the MS security model. Writing virii for any *NIX style operating system is MUCH harder. That being said, the graphical interface of OSX (which was written by Apple) may be more vulnerable.

FreeBSD has had its share of security vulnerabilities. Just google "FreeBSD security vulnerability" for plenty of examples.

The reality is, the # of discovered security vulnerabilities is approximately proportional to the user base.

The # of bugs per line of code is probably pretty consistent across platforms.

[paul cottingham]

Not true. The larger issue is how the OS handles security. Allowing processes to run as a superpriveleged user (which windows does) creates all kinds of issues. *nix allows you to isolate this more, which means it is much less vulnerable. Try googling qmail vulnerabilities and read what the causes are. It ain't qmail.

[Phil Thien]

Not true. The larger issue is how the OS handles security. Allowing processes to run as a superpriveleged user (which windows does) creates all kinds of issues. *nix allows you to isolate this more, which means it is much less vulnerable. Try googling qmail vulnerabilities and read what the causes are. It ain't qmail.

Not true what?

You do realize Windows offered C2 security starting with NT. All derivatives (2000, XP, Vista, 7, and all the server operating systems) allow you to restrict administrator privileges.

BTW, limited privileges are important. But keep in mind, anything running with your user account's privileges can: (1) Hide all your files (current trick of some malware on Windows, probably soon to be Mac), (2) Delete your files, (3) Execute code that exploits a vulnerability which may give it root/administrator privileges.

[Brian Ashton]

'cause their security model wasn't created by gerbils.

Now that gets quote of the day

[Bryan Morgan]

Anyone like that song Holy Wars by Megadeth? Its a good song....

[paul cottingham]

Still based on a flawed and poor security model. Enough, we must agree to disagree.

[David Cefai]

There's an easy answer. Switch to Linux. Free and totally open. Install VirtualBox to run those (very few) apps that Linux does not hav a good equivalent for.

There are only two I know of: AutoCad and MSAccess.

[Curt Harms]

There's an easy answer. Switch to Linux. Free and totally open. Install VirtualBox to run those (very few) apps that Linux does not hav a good equivalent for.

There are only two I know of: AutoCad and MSAccess.

And a lot would say PhotoShop. GIMP works fine for me but my knowledge and requirements are modest. Oh, and GIMP is available for Windows too. I read something a day or so ago on a forum so I can't vouch for the accuracy. Someone said consumer oriented Windows versions are not licensed for use on virtual machines. I just multi-boot for the infrequent times I need Windows rather than run a virtual machine but if you want to stay legal I guess you'd need Win7 Pro or higher to install on a virtual machine.

[Phil Thien]

Still based on a flawed and poor security model. Enough, we must agree to disagree.

Okay. But for the record, I don't think it is ever fair to the person with whom you're speaking (in person or online) to make a comment like that and then end with "we must agree to disagree."

[paul cottingham]

Fine. We can continue to argue, but I think it is pretty fruitless. I started this, I'm ending it.

[Bryan Morgan]

And a lot would say PhotoShop. GIMP works fine for me but my knowledge and requirements are modest. Oh, and GIMP is available for Windows too. I read something a day or so ago on a forum so I can't vouch for the accuracy. Someone said consumer oriented Windows versions are not licensed for use on virtual machines. I just multi-boot for the infrequent times I need Windows rather than run a virtual machine but if you want to stay legal I guess you'd need Win7 Pro or higher to install on a virtual machine.

http://www.gimpshop.com/

[Greg Peterson]

If all the various flavors of linux are so fantastic, robust and secure (I am not arguing these points), why are they not more prevalent?

The Apple acolytes claim OS X is super, duper easy to use and saves many steps that MS users have to take to accomplish a similar task. The MS devotees claim that MS is the 500 pound gorilla and that the world is MS centric.

I'll provide one answer. The average user can barely operate a computer. Sure they can open a browser, maybe create documents, play with some .jpg files and maybe work with a spread sheet. But really, the average user just wants to turn on the machine and be surfing in seconds.

Apple tries very hard to insulate the user from having to know much of anything about the machine or the software. This certainly has it merits. MS is pretty much the same. Tomato, tomotto.

At the very least, Linux suffers from the perception that it is for nerds or folks that are not afraid to pop the hood and tweak their computer.

As for security, Apple's security is no better than MS if the user logs in as administrator. You think the average user is ignorant of basic file management skills? They are even more clueless when it comes to security. And no one has done an effective job of educating their user base.

I suspect people use the admin account for the same reason they take the guards off their table saws. Convenience. And Linux may do everything and then some, but surely doesn't scream convenience.

[paul cottingham]

If all the various flavors of linux are so fantastic, robust and secure (I am not arguing these points), why are they not more prevalent?

The Apple acolytes claim OS X is super, duper easy to use and saves many steps that MS users have to take to accomplish a similar task. The MS devotees claim that MS is the 500 pound gorilla and that the world is MS centric.

I'll provide one answer. The average user can barely operate a computer. Sure they can open a browser, maybe create documents, play with some .jpg files and maybe work with a spread sheet. But really, the average user just wants to turn on the machine and be surfing in seconds.

Apple tries very hard to insulate the user from having to know much of anything about the machine or the software. This certainly has it merits. MS is pretty much the same. Tomato, tomotto.

At the very least, Linux suffers from the perception that it is for nerds or folks that are not afraid to pop the hood and tweak their computer.

As for security, Apple's security is no better than MS if the user logs in as administrator. You think the average user is ignorant of basic file management skills? They are even more clueless when it comes to security. And no one has done an effective job of educating their user base.

I suspect people use the admin account for the same reason they take the guards off their table saws. Convenience. And Linux may do everything and then some, but surely doesn't scream convenience.

The real reason is market share, pure and simple. Linux is no harder or easier to use than the mac or MS. No Linux flavor lets you log in as root by default, ubuntu won't even let you su up to it. There is real security in that.

Now I'm shutting up.

[Greg Peterson]

It's all about the user experience. Imagine a day when someone asks the arcane question "what operating system does your (insert ubiquitous computer appliance name) use?" and the answer is "Huh? Operating system? What's that?".

We are in the midst of a OS battle. A few years from now the desktop OS battle will seem trivial and quaint.