CNET- is this article Mac Bashing?

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 11
    placeboplacebo Posts: 5,767member
    How is that Mac-bashing? It's an interview that doesn't glaze over the security troubles Mac OS X has been having lately.
  • Reply 2 of 11
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Which security troubles, Placebo?



    The ones that have been overblown and erroneously reported?



    Or the ones that have been patched before an exploit has been seen in the wild?



    As for the article, it looked good to me. Solid questions, good answers. No bashing.
  • Reply 3 of 11
    splinemodelsplinemodel Posts: 7,311member
    Sweet Star Trek reference. . . .



    I agree with Kickaha. The "security problems," I feel, get so much attention only because secutiry problems are so few and far between on the mac.
  • Reply 4 of 11
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,215member
    Lately there seems to be a concerted effort to show that OS X has security issues. Fair enough



    Mac 3

    Windows 300,000





    annually.





    I still choose Macintosh. Thank you.







    PS. Cnet still sucks
  • Reply 5 of 11
    placeboplacebo Posts: 5,767member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Kickaha

    Which security troubles, Placebo?



    The ones that have been overblown and erroneously reported?



    Or the ones that have been patched before an exploit has been seen in the wild?



    As for the article, it looked good to me. Solid questions, good answers. No bashing.




    They are erroneously reported, and Apple has done a great job patching, but it's not overblown, because in all fairness, it's the first time in forever that Apple has had any Mac OS X flaws of this kind at all, even though they are now fixed. The article is evenhanded and informative.
  • Reply 6 of 11
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    The article, yes... but I'm still wondering what these security 'troubles' are...



    And come on - it's not like flaws haven't been there, they're just being *caught* more readily now. Which is fantastic, IMO. I'm not one of those folks who think the OS is bullet-proof, heck no.



    I just take exception to escalating what is pretty run of the mill patching to 'troubles', when in the grand scheme of things its not even a drop in the bucket. Let me know when the first honest to god worm attack hits, and then we can talk about 'troubles'. How many major attacks has Windows had in the past two years? Ones that ended up plastered all over CNN, et al, with public warnings about wide-spread problems? That caused millions, or billions, in damages? Them's troubles.



    A security patch two weeks running? Not troubles.
  • Reply 7 of 11
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,660member
    Hmmm.....



    1-- Apple switches to Intel, sees some market growth for the first time in who knows how long, starts making noise on the Home Entertainment front, expands iTMS offerings into video, iPod world domination proceeds apace, gets lots of nice press about the relative security of its OS.



    2-- MS gets a steady drumbeat of bad press around malware and spyware and trojans driving Grandma's PC to its knees, aaannnndddd.....Vista is due to finally be rolled out later this year, with its specific promise to address same.



    3-- Presto! Abruptly there are a bunch of stories about OS X "hacks" and "exploits" and "security holes" and "trojans", all of which get blurred into "OS X has viruses too".



    Really, come on, pretty much nothing for the last 5 years, and then, months before the rollout of Vista, OS X "vulnerabilities" start popping up like mushrooms, complete with nonsensical stunts like "I hacked OS X in 30 minutes (cough after being given a local account cough)" and "opening and installing a malicious app equals virus"?



    Please. I'm sure OS X has vulnerabilities, it's an operating system, after all, but this abrupt upswell of negative press stinks to high heaven.
  • Reply 8 of 11
    cosmonutcosmonut Posts: 4,872member
    I'm switching back to IBM's OS/2. Enough with Mac OS X!



  • Reply 9 of 11
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,660member
    Warp 4-ever!
  • Reply 10 of 11
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    Windows hasn't really taken many beatings since the release of XP-SP2 and even less once they got Anti-Spyware/Defender rolling.

    The vast majority of Windows security updates are minor and pre-emptive.



    OSX is holding up very well. Obviously it still isn't getting anywhere near the attention from the bad guys but anything that doesn't kill it just makes it stronger. It's always better to know about a security hole.



    The overall security picture is much better in March of 2006 than it was in March of 2003. Both Apple and Microsoft have done good work in that time.
  • Reply 11 of 11
    mr. hmr. h Posts: 4,698member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by hmurchison

    Mac 3

    Windows 300,000





    Actually, if you're talking viruses, it's still Mac OS X: 0



    The press use the term "virus" as a catch all, when they really shouldn't. Viruses, trojans and worms are all "malware" (the term the press really should be using), but each significantly different from the others. The things that have appeared on OS X lately are mostly trojans, I think the iChat one could possibly, at a stretch, be considered a worm.



    No operating system can possibly be immune from trojans, as they are purely "social engineering", and do not need to exploit flaws in the OS to work.
Sign In or Register to comment.