> My impression is that it was less a copy MS thing and more a now how do > we get this in thing.
I don't see it. I have a Neststation here, and a UNIX-based PC running FreeBSD, and so I have pretty much all the non-Mac-OS heritage of OS X in front of me. Almost everything in FUS was already there in NeXTstep except for lots of memory for the extra frame buffers, and the console switching code, and *that* was in FreeBSD. Every PC UNIX implementation in the world has something akin to virtual consoles, these days, andnone of them restrict you the way Microsoft does. In fact, they had to do more work on it to restrict it to one session per user than just to implement virtual consoles. > Yes, I agree with that. Now the question is, once you get a vendor who > is providing that, as Apple has for the most part although not > perfectly by any means, how do you want the vendor to deal with users > who are not always careful. If the user is going to download, unpack, and open an untrusted object they are going to do that no matter what you do. I have a few users who now and then come to me with "I know you told me not to do this, but I wasn't thinking". Based on the people I work with, I'd say a few percent of the people out there aren't going to stop and think. I'm not trying to protect them, I'm trying to protect the other 97-98% of the users. My experience over the past ten years of simply banning software that makes it impossible to distinguish between trusted and untrusted data is much more effective in stopping viruses than trying to filter out malware that the users don't get to see. > MS wants more control over patching even > though MS's patching has often opened old holes that had been fixed. That's because MS decided right up front that they were going to keep the water out of the polder by hiring teams of little dutch boys with cybernetic thumbs instead of replacing the earthen dams with steel and concrete. They even insist that this bad design is so important they're willing to pay billions in damages rather than fix it. > In > the Windows world patching sometimes causes more problems than it > solves, and MS wants to force everyone to patch more blaming viruses > and worms on users not applying patches. That is the other extreme ... > middle ground, so important, so hard to find. What middle ground? What extremes are you talking about? This isn't a choice between extremes, it's a choice between wearing shoes and not wearing shoes, it's a choice between washing your hands and brushing your teeth and not doing it. Microsoft's saying "go ahead and play in the dump and then eat a burger, we'll patch the burger wrapper and keep you safe no matter how careless you are." I'm saying "wash your hands before you eat", and knowing that a few people won't... but the majority that do are unlikely to regularly have a bad night with stomach cramps. -- Unsupported OS X is sponsored by <http://lowendmac.com/> Support Low End Mac <http://lowendmac.com/lists/support.html> Unsupported OS X list info <http://lowendmac.com/lists/unsupported.html> --> AOL users, remove "mailto:"; Send list messages to: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To unsubscribe, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For digest mode, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subscription questions: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Archive <http://www.mail-archive.com/unsupportedosx%40mail.maclaunch.com/> Using a Mac? Free email & more at Applelinks! http://www.applelinks.com
