I agree, Google and Samsung care about security about as much as Apple does on OSX. In other words, not at all - remember Flashback? Apple didn't release the patch for OSX for months and months after it was released by Oracle.
You'd think that for a first post, someone might refrain from abject trolling.
"I think Google gave non-iPhone users the false impression that all smart phones are iPhones."
With freedom comes responsibility (note, in my house there is an iPhone, two iPads, a Samsung Galaxy SIII and a Nokia Lumia 920 - the Galaxy hasn't even been charged since Christmas I think).
Android gives you freedom, but that means you have to behave responsibly. Not everybody does (or can). It's a trade off, and I am not willing to say one is absolutely wrong and the other absolutely right. They are different and serve different purposes. A walled garden is for those who can't or won't take responsibility for what happens on their phone sys admin style. For most people, that might be OK. It's a phone, why treat it like a computer, right? For others, the ability to do what you want is more important.
Apparently Ben Franklin is to have said something similar to: "People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both." In principle I do agree with Ben here, there can be no doubt that the Apple view of a Walled Garden for all to play in is one of the most dangerous threats to computer freedom today. That and the "You're the product we're selling" attitudes of Google and Facebook.
The weird thing is that the current behavior or Apple (All your base are belong to us) and Google/Facebook (we'll sell you, your soul, your children and whatever else we can get our hands on to the highest bidder) makes Microsoft look like the Good Guys (TM).
The weird thing is that the current behavior or Apple (All your base are belong to us) and Google/Facebook (we'll sell you, your soul, your children and whatever else we can get our hands on to the highest bidder) makes Microsoft look like the Good Guys (TM).
Microsoft, who has a garden with even higher walls and thicker gates.
Look, Ballmer, either go find a Windows forum or get back to dancing.
You'd think that for a first post, someone might refrain from abject trolling.
You'd expect that for someone replying, there would be actual content in the reply. Apple actually has a long history of being far too late with security updates. This is a matter of history, no matter what your particular religious beliefs about your computer equipment says.
I didn't actually make a statement that requires enlightenment. I replied to a statement claiming Microsoft's walled garden has higher walls and thicker gates. That's at the current time unsubstantiated BS.
'Course not. Except for the part where you don't disprove what I've said yet try to claim I'm wrong.
Sigh. So you want me to prove a negative? You are actually asking me to prove that Microsoft doesn't have higher walls than Apple? The statement that needs "proof" is the positive statement, in fact, it is the only one where supplying proof is possible. The "no, it is not so" neither needs proof, nor can it have it. Proving a negative is not possible. Asking for proof that something "isn't" is therefore rather idiotic. Please, I am not saying that you are an idiot, just that your request is idiotic.
So, the only baseless statement currently is (stated more formally) "Microsoft's walled garden is more restrictive than Apple's walled garden". The question then becomes "How so?"
So you want me to prove a negative? You are actually asking me to prove that Microsoft doesn't have higher walls than Apple?
Yep. It's easy for anyone who actually has an argument to support it. Reword the effing question if it's so "difficult" for you to comprehend: How is Microsoft more open than Apple?
Yep. It's easy for anyone who actually has an argument to support it. Reword the effing question if it's so "difficult" for you to comprehend: How is Microsoft more open than Apple?
Simple. Answer it or don't.
I would love for you to answer this simple question: Why should I answer that? I have never stated that Microsoft is more open than Apple. I have only said they are not more closed. Not more closed doesn't mean more open. Even my two year old has grasped such concepts. Perhaps you should consult with an adult with a functional language comprehension prior to making an utter fool out of your self.
Yep. It's easy for anyone who actually has an argument to support it. Reword the effing question if it's so "difficult" for you to comprehend: How is Microsoft more open than Apple?
Simple. Answer it or don't.
Looks like my answer to this one has been removed by someone, so I'll try to answer it, perhaps a little more politely. Here it is: I have never stated that Microsoft is more open than Apple. Why do you think I have said that?
Let me try an analogy for you. Mr Smith says: Mr Jones is a theif. Mr Jones answers "no I am not". Mr Smith then says: "Prove it". Sadly, in the universe we live, Mr Jones can not. It isn't possible to prove that you are not a thief (in other words, to prove a negative). You are demanding Mr Jones proves he is not a thief, that's absurd. I'll repeat it, I have ONLY said that Microsoft is NOT more closed than Apple, I have not said whether that means that Microsoft is more open than Apple or whether that means that they are equally closed.
There is only ONE positive statement made in this debate, and that is yours, and you are the only one who could possibly have any proof, since - as I might have mentioned, you cannot prove a negative.
There is only ONE positive statement made in this debate, and that is yours, and you are the only one who could possibly have any proof, since - as I might have mentioned, you cannot prove a negative.
Since you refuse to comprehend what you're even talking about, we're done here. I'm not wasting my time with someone who moves the goalposts and then drapes a giant cloth over where the goalpost used to be and claims that it can't be proven the goalpost has moved… when you can see it right behind the cloth.
...as I might have mentioned, you cannot prove a negative.
That's not correct. You can't always prove a negative but it's possible to show that an outcome is negative. 2 - 5 = -3 is one of an infinite number of examples that you can prove a negative. What you're talking about is the Evidence of Absence logical fallacy in which one is unable to show an affirmation of negation which means that the opposite is therefore true.
As for your other comments about who is more closed or open, i don't get your logic. You haven't detailed any criteria to what is open or closed but you've stated (not proved) that MS is not more closed than Apple but you don't think that means they must be more open than Apple, yet fail to detail how they must be exactly the same which is the only other option between the common binary options of more and less.
Based on the number of open source software Apple supports directly in their OS compared to MS once can say Apple is more open than MS. Based on the fact Apple's core OS (Darwin) and kernel are open source and MS Windows has no such offering one can say that Apple is more open. Both of these specific statements imply that MS is therefore more closed.
I have now been using Android for 5 years. And I have no malware on my phone. Yes, I check the permissions before installing, and if I find anything suspicious, I don't install the app. Not really all that difficult. I also side load a lot of apps, but only from trusted sources. eg. I side loaded Swype while it was being beta tested. I side load adaway now that Google has decided to be evil about it. Most of this "research" is conducted by snake oil security firms. And every once in a while, I download them, run their scans, find no malware and promptly delete them. Here are a couple of screen shots of recent scans. https://www.dropbox.com/s/3yprz32jjmywku2/Screenshot_2013-04-22-01-38-00.png https://www.dropbox.com/s/uh07uhnpzff1ww7/Screenshot_2013-04-22-01-50-02.png
Don't get me wrong. There are plenty of real dangers. But it's really not that difficult to prevent getting a single malware on your phone. And as far as iOS apps are concerned. How do you know they are safe? The reason that malware is discovered on Android is precisely because the OS is open.
A while ago, the Camera+ app which used the Volume buttons for taking snaps was rejected from the AppStore *after* it was approved. How did it get the hidden feature through the approval process? It was discovered and rejected because it violated AppStore policies. How do you know how much malware has made through and not been discovered?
Charlie Miller snuck in a prototype malware program into the App Store. Apple did not discover it until he publicly announced it and got the app rejected. How do you know hoe much malware there really is floating around in the App Store?
Give me the choice of checking the permissions any day. I let Google's Bouncer do the grunt work, but still search myself. Likewise Apple may well be getting *most* of the malware out, but if something slips through, there is no second line of defense.
I second what you said, good post. I'm also tired of this Malware talk, I'm yet to have gotten one as well. Only use top tier apps from both sides of the pond and you'll be just fine.
Based on the fact Apple's core OS (Darwin) and kernel are open source and MS Windows has no such offering one can say that Apple is more open.
Yes definitely, Darwin is based upon open source software, unfortunately though Apple has closed down OpenDarwin and it's collaborative community. Which meant no more new builds after Darwin 9 (OSX 10.6). Developers can still submit fixes they believe to be be bugs but it is at Apple's discretion if anything happens with it. Before 2006 it was possible to monitor your bugs status that would ultimately end up in a OSX build. So you can say that their OS is now closed, were as before it was just the Aqua desktop that was closed. There is another project called PureDarwin that uses the older Darwin 9 but the last time I played with it I found it to be PureCrap. Those who are interested in a BSD OS would be better served by using FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD and my personal favorite PC-BSD, which is based off of FreeBSD but comes with all the goodies preinstalled.
I'm not wasting my time with someone who moves the goalposts ...
Goodness. I have not changed anything at all about anything I have said in this discussion. I have stated one thing, and one thing only, and that is that the claim that Apples walled garden is more open than Microsoft's walled garden is wrong. Nothing changed at all.
Sadly, you spout religious nonsense and refuse to back it up with facts or documentation. That is just sad, and I actually pity you. Get well.
As for your other comments about who is more closed or open, i don't get your logic. You haven't detailed any criteria to what is open or closed
You are absolutely correct in that I have not detailed any criteria for what is open an what is closed. I have only stated that a statement claiming that Microsoft is more closed than Apple is unsubstantiated. There are more than two (of the ones I listed for the simpleton who have been hounding me to prove a negative - see articles referred at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proving_a_negative) possible reasons.
Microsoft is more open than Apple
Microsoft is equally open to Apple
The statement is nonsensical and determining openness is impossible or highly subjective, the original statement then is absurd
For many reasons, see for example "Unfair Burden" in the article referred above, it is the job of the person making the positive statement to supply proof. Anything else is both unreasonable and quite illogical. Russel's tea pot is a good example. I refer to the example I used above:
Mr Jones: Mr Smith is a thief
Mr Smith: No I am not
Mr Jones: Prove it
Nobody in their right mind would demand that Mr Smith provides such a proof. Here is what has happened in this thread:
Statement: Microsoft is more closed than Apple
Negation: No it is not
Tallest Skil: Prove it
Why would the burden of proof fall on the "No it is not" in the second case?
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by tabinnorway
I agree, Google and Samsung care about security about as much as Apple does on OSX. In other words, not at all - remember Flashback? Apple didn't release the patch for OSX for months and months after it was released by Oracle.
You'd think that for a first post, someone might refrain from abject trolling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SixnaHalfFeet
May I correct your statement for you?
"I think Google gave non-iPhone users the false impression that all smart phones are iPhones."
With freedom comes responsibility (note, in my house there is an iPhone, two iPads, a Samsung Galaxy SIII and a Nokia Lumia 920 - the Galaxy hasn't even been charged since Christmas I think).
Android gives you freedom, but that means you have to behave responsibly. Not everybody does (or can). It's a trade off, and I am not willing to say one is absolutely wrong and the other absolutely right. They are different and serve different purposes. A walled garden is for those who can't or won't take responsibility for what happens on their phone sys admin style. For most people, that might be OK. It's a phone, why treat it like a computer, right? For others, the ability to do what you want is more important.
Apparently Ben Franklin is to have said something similar to: "People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both." In principle I do agree with Ben here, there can be no doubt that the Apple view of a Walled Garden for all to play in is one of the most dangerous threats to computer freedom today. That and the "You're the product we're selling" attitudes of Google and Facebook.
The weird thing is that the current behavior or Apple (All your base are belong to us) and Google/Facebook (we'll sell you, your soul, your children and whatever else we can get our hands on to the highest bidder) makes Microsoft look like the Good Guys (TM).
Originally Posted by tabinnorway
The weird thing is that the current behavior or Apple (All your base are belong to us) and Google/Facebook (we'll sell you, your soul, your children and whatever else we can get our hands on to the highest bidder) makes Microsoft look like the Good Guys (TM).
Microsoft, who has a garden with even higher walls and thicker gates.
Look, Ballmer, either go find a Windows forum or get back to dancing.
Originally Posted by tabinnorway
Sigh. The reality distortion field still functional I see. The cluelessnes too.
Then enlighten us, oh all-knowing troll.
You'd expect that for someone replying, there would be actual content in the reply. Apple actually has a long history of being far too late with security updates. This is a matter of history, no matter what your particular religious beliefs about your computer equipment says.
I didn't actually make a statement that requires enlightenment. I replied to a statement claiming Microsoft's walled garden has higher walls and thicker gates. That's at the current time unsubstantiated BS.
Originally Posted by tabinnorway
I didn't actually make a statement that requires enlightenment.
'Course not. Except for the part where you don't disprove what I've said yet try to claim I'm wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
'Course not. Except for the part where you don't disprove what I've said yet try to claim I'm wrong.
Sigh. So you want me to prove a negative? You are actually asking me to prove that Microsoft doesn't have higher walls than Apple? The statement that needs "proof" is the positive statement, in fact, it is the only one where supplying proof is possible. The "no, it is not so" neither needs proof, nor can it have it. Proving a negative is not possible. Asking for proof that something "isn't" is therefore rather idiotic. Please, I am not saying that you are an idiot, just that your request is idiotic.
So, the only baseless statement currently is (stated more formally) "Microsoft's walled garden is more restrictive than Apple's walled garden". The question then becomes "How so?"
Originally Posted by tabinnorway
So you want me to prove a negative? You are actually asking me to prove that Microsoft doesn't have higher walls than Apple?
Yep. It's easy for anyone who actually has an argument to support it. Reword the effing question if it's so "difficult" for you to comprehend: How is Microsoft more open than Apple?
Simple. Answer it or don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Yep. It's easy for anyone who actually has an argument to support it. Reword the effing question if it's so "difficult" for you to comprehend: How is Microsoft more open than Apple?
Simple. Answer it or don't.
I would love for you to answer this simple question: Why should I answer that? I have never stated that Microsoft is more open than Apple. I have only said they are not more closed. Not more closed doesn't mean more open. Even my two year old has grasped such concepts. Perhaps you should consult with an adult with a functional language comprehension prior to making an utter fool out of your self.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Yep. It's easy for anyone who actually has an argument to support it. Reword the effing question if it's so "difficult" for you to comprehend: How is Microsoft more open than Apple?
Simple. Answer it or don't.
Looks like my answer to this one has been removed by someone, so I'll try to answer it, perhaps a little more politely. Here it is: I have never stated that Microsoft is more open than Apple. Why do you think I have said that?
Let me try an analogy for you. Mr Smith says: Mr Jones is a theif. Mr Jones answers "no I am not". Mr Smith then says: "Prove it". Sadly, in the universe we live, Mr Jones can not. It isn't possible to prove that you are not a thief (in other words, to prove a negative). You are demanding Mr Jones proves he is not a thief, that's absurd. I'll repeat it, I have ONLY said that Microsoft is NOT more closed than Apple, I have not said whether that means that Microsoft is more open than Apple or whether that means that they are equally closed.
There is only ONE positive statement made in this debate, and that is yours, and you are the only one who could possibly have any proof, since - as I might have mentioned, you cannot prove a negative.
Originally Posted by tabinnorway
There is only ONE positive statement made in this debate, and that is yours, and you are the only one who could possibly have any proof, since - as I might have mentioned, you cannot prove a negative.
Since you refuse to comprehend what you're even talking about, we're done here. I'm not wasting my time with someone who moves the goalposts and then drapes a giant cloth over where the goalpost used to be and claims that it can't be proven the goalpost has moved… when you can see it right behind the cloth.
That's not correct. You can't always prove a negative but it's possible to show that an outcome is negative. 2 - 5 = -3 is one of an infinite number of examples that you can prove a negative. What you're talking about is the Evidence of Absence logical fallacy in which one is unable to show an affirmation of negation which means that the opposite is therefore true.
As for your other comments about who is more closed or open, i don't get your logic. You haven't detailed any criteria to what is open or closed but you've stated (not proved) that MS is not more closed than Apple but you don't think that means they must be more open than Apple, yet fail to detail how they must be exactly the same which is the only other option between the common binary options of more and less.
Based on the number of open source software Apple supports directly in their OS compared to MS once can say Apple is more open than MS. Based on the fact Apple's core OS (Darwin) and kernel are open source and MS Windows has no such offering one can say that Apple is more open. Both of these specific statements imply that MS is therefore more closed.
I second what you said, good post. I'm also tired of this Malware talk, I'm yet to have gotten one as well. Only use top tier apps from both sides of the pond and you'll be just fine.
First the system isn't Android it's a custom embedded Linux, second MY LAMB CHOPS!!!!
This is what you want though;
Yes that is a iPad, the new Whirpool Centralpark, ooooohhhhh Mommy want's.
Yes definitely, Darwin is based upon open source software, unfortunately though Apple has closed down OpenDarwin and it's collaborative community. Which meant no more new builds after Darwin 9 (OSX 10.6). Developers can still submit fixes they believe to be be bugs but it is at Apple's discretion if anything happens with it. Before 2006 it was possible to monitor your bugs status that would ultimately end up in a OSX build. So you can say that their OS is now closed, were as before it was just the Aqua desktop that was closed. There is another project called PureDarwin that uses the older Darwin 9 but the last time I played with it I found it to be PureCrap. Those who are interested in a BSD OS would be better served by using FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD and my personal favorite PC-BSD, which is based off of FreeBSD but comes with all the goodies preinstalled.
http://darwinbuild.macosforge.org/
http://www.puredarwin.org/
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
I'm not wasting my time with someone who moves the goalposts ...
Goodness. I have not changed anything at all about anything I have said in this discussion. I have stated one thing, and one thing only, and that is that the claim that Apples walled garden is more open than Microsoft's walled garden is wrong. Nothing changed at all.
Sadly, you spout religious nonsense and refuse to back it up with facts or documentation. That is just sad, and I actually pity you. Get well.
Originally Posted by tabinnorway
I have not changed anything at all about anything I have said in this discussion.
Of course not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
As for your other comments about who is more closed or open, i don't get your logic. You haven't detailed any criteria to what is open or closed
You are absolutely correct in that I have not detailed any criteria for what is open an what is closed. I have only stated that a statement claiming that Microsoft is more closed than Apple is unsubstantiated. There are more than two (of the ones I listed for the simpleton who have been hounding me to prove a negative - see articles referred at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proving_a_negative) possible reasons.
Microsoft is more open than Apple
Microsoft is equally open to Apple
The statement is nonsensical and determining openness is impossible or highly subjective, the original statement then is absurd
For many reasons, see for example "Unfair Burden" in the article referred above, it is the job of the person making the positive statement to supply proof. Anything else is both unreasonable and quite illogical. Russel's tea pot is a good example. I refer to the example I used above:
Mr Jones: Mr Smith is a thief
Mr Smith: No I am not
Mr Jones: Prove it
Nobody in their right mind would demand that Mr Smith provides such a proof. Here is what has happened in this thread:
Statement: Microsoft is more closed than Apple
Negation: No it is not
Tallest Skil: Prove it
Why would the burden of proof fall on the "No it is not" in the second case?