>>Abdul, I don't believe you are being deliberately malicious, but you are spreading Windows propaganda. My regrets that I let this ride a few days.<<
Mr. Curmudgeon, I don't believe you are being malicious either, but you are biased. So frankly, its a little hard to take your position seriously... ...to say nothing of your ad hominem attacks. >> > There is no hard empirical evidence supporting the notion that Windows' > greater susceptibility to viruses and worms is exclusively due to low > quality development on the part of Microsoft. How many hundreds of experts opinion do you need to read to think there might be something to this? My favorite pundit writes about this again this week, he mentions Boot Camp too. http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20060406.html << I have read many hundred more that affirm my thesis. You aren't anymore right than I am. Try again. >> > The argument could also be made that the very fact that Windows is > used by the majority makes it more of a target. s Target for script kiddies maybe. Oh, but you just asserted that the Windows architecture doesn't make it more vulnerable. For the real hacker, there would be great prestige in authoring the first true virus. OS X is wearing a huge bulls eye, it could not be more of a target, yet remains uncompromised! << Actually, you misconstrued what I said, which is that the prevalence of malware is not *exclusive* to any alleged low quality development on the part of Microsoft. There was no value judgment made on my part regarding Windows. So please do not put words in my mouth as I am very careful about the ones that come out of it. Anyway, my assertion is consistent with the premise that there are other reasons why one is more likely to find such viruses on Windows than on the Mac. Hackers create viruses for many reasons: prestige, principal, mischief... Whatever the reason, the occurrences of malware is more likely if more hackers are begrudgingly relegated to a given platform, which happens (by the way) to be Windows. This is a common sense argument. Regarding the matter of security, Mac OS is not perfect. And as more people migrate toward its use, the laws of probability say that it becomes even more likely that said weaknesses will be discovered and exploited overtime. And given the fact that it was only recently that Apple adopted BSD as the core of Mac OS X, it is really only a matter of time. >> > In other words, Mac OS may be too small a fry for which hackers could > pay any attention. Classic FUD that gets to insult Macs for their market share as well as being a pretend explanation for the lack of malware. If the OS X virus rate was a fraction of the Windows rate this argument would have some credibility. If there is but one Mac user for every twenty Windows users, then if things were balanced there would one Mac virus for every twenty Windows virus. Playing the popularity card, say Windows is a hundred times more attractive to hackers, one might expect one Mac virus for every two thousand viruses. The ratio is even less than one hundredth of that. If that is enough to convince you the assertion is specious, consider this: viruses propagated just fine in the early days of Unix and Mac OS Classic, just as they did for DOS. The disproportionate market share, and the lack of the Internet, didn't stop the malware from spreading then. There are way more Mac OS X machines now than early DOS boxes when viruses first started propagating (let alone Classic machines) so it obvious that the critical mass necessary for malware to thrive exists. << You say that my explanation is "pretend" and I say that you are demonstrating a lack of perspective. My point is simply that a primary consideration of most who create malware for the Windows platform is the fact that it is ubiquities, thus the potential for great mischief, disruption, what-have-you. My assertion is that given the time, Apple could just as well, be facing the same issues. I know for a fact both on a professional and academic level, that effective security requires a well thought out or designed approach. But as design and strategy must remain dynamic, the most important component must be vigilance. hackers are vigilant as well. But this is a fundamentally new OS which is only now getting the greater respect of the consumer and businesses. So don't worry, the hackers will come. >> > Thus it is conceivable that there are viruses that could just as well > corrupt a Mac OS partition via use of Windows on the same machine. When booting from the Windows partition, Windows XP cannot even see the Mac file system, let alone read OS X formatted volumes. You want to attribute to multiple viruses powers the Windows operating system does not even possess? Desperate and envious Windows apologists are gleefully hoping Boot Camp will inflict even part of their pain to Mac users. They will be disappointed. << Good grief, who the hell are you, the defender of the faith? Try to tone down the super didactic praise of the Mac, it makes you sound like a cliché evil villain often seen in cartoons. Actually I know very much of what I speak as it is true that a number of Malware have been known to affect much lower level sub-systems of a computers. I know of viruses that are designed to affect the firmware of routers and switches... Theoretically (as someone who is well schooled in the concepts and theories of computer organization) I can assure you that such a virus can exist, where Mac OS can be corrupted via Windows on a share hardware platform. But this was hardly the thrust of my statement. As I so clearly explained, numerous study show that an overwhelming majority of malware affected computers, are attributable to a lack of vigilance on the part of the user. People don't follow up on updates, even as they are so often admonished to do so. >> > If Apple were to have Microsoft's market share, you would see the same > level of behavior which inexorably leads to the same outcome. So, to paraphrase, you are arguing the average Mac user is smarter than the average Windows user? I am tempted concede the point. There used to be the tradition of asserting that Mac users were too stupid to figure out Windows, but the rush of Unix switchers seems to have put that lie to bed. << It appears that you are not an intellectually honest person. I have made no ad hominem claims regarding those who use Mac or Windows. Yes, there are more "less informed" Windows users than there are "less informed" Mac users. But that tends to happen when 90% of the market belongs to Windows. >> > In other words, there might come a day when you will have to do just > as much to protect your Mac OS as you would a PC. Another assertion lacking any credibility that Windows apologist desperately repeat to each other as they try to convince themselves that things are not so bad. I understand why people are stuck with Windows at work. I am in that sad state of affairs too. But for the home, or if you are self-employeed, (that is, to say, if you have a choice about it), why would anyone pick Windows over OS X? Fear of the unknown is the only reason for the status quo. << That you are less informed about my perspective does not mean that my arguments have any less credibility than yours. I am hardly an apologist as I have owned Macs in the past, and have given serious thought to owning them in the future. But unlike you, I am not a Mac apologist, and in that sense, I am certain that my approach is tempered with a bit more objectivity. Ciao
