tjpa > On Mar 23, 2010, at 2:48 PM, mike wrote: >> Yeah I covered that too in the past. I'm not arguing >> you are not safer on a mac, I'm arguing the same thing >> Miller is verifying, macs are safer because they are >> such a small portion of the market and the hackers don't >> spend time going after them, not because they are coded >> by perfect beings up on a mountain top.
> This is such a ridiculous assertion. If Macs were attacked > less often this type of assertion might have some merit, > but it completely fails to explain why the number of > exploits is zero. Uhhh, <raises hand> in the past, the Mac marketplace was much smaller, the likelihood of finding a Mac to infect was equally likely small. If there was three chances in a hundred systems of infecting a computer, would aim for the three systems? Also, the most infectious varieties seem to be peer based, that is they spread between like architecture machines. In our current environment, how many companies have a preponderance of Mac's (except for Apple, etc.)? -- Take care | This clown speaks for himself, his job doesn't Wayne D. | supply this, at least not directly Press any key to continue or any other key to quit ************************************************************************* ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *************************************************************************
