Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Three Reasons (At Least) Why Mac Users Need to Cool the Smugness and Condescension
BizzyBlog ^ | August 21, 2005 | BizzyBlog

Posted on 08/21/2005 5:35:07 PM PDT by bizzyblog

As a 20-year Macintosh user going back to when the machines didn't even have hard drives, I confess to being a big fan of Apple and the Mac OS.

I also confess to being a nearly-insufferable Mac evangelist (some would say "delete 'nearly'") until about seven years ago, when, as a result of Windows 98, the differences between Windows and the Mac as a platform for the average user became so small that they didn't matter. Those differences remain small, despite the exceptionally cool advances in the Mac OS through Jaguar, Panther, and Tiger.

(snip)

Also cooling my ardor for the Mac is the remarkable air of condescension still present in "the Mac community," which is pretty amazing considering Apple's puny market share. I believe that the attitudes of too many current Mac users prevent a lot of those who might consider ditching Windows from doing so, simply because they don't want to be seen as joining what has almost become a cult (some would say "delete 'almost'").

So, in the interest of knocking Mac users down a peg or two, I offer three reasons, based on news of the past week or so, that we in "the Mac community" should cool it on the arrogance. At the same time, I'll knock down three myths about the Mac and its users (bolds are mine in all three reasons).

REASON 1--Exploding the myth that Mac users are so much more civilized than the rabble who use PCs:

Seventeen injured during used laptop sale

(Excerpt) Read more at bizzyblog.com ...


TOPICS: Computers/Internet
KEYWORDS: anythingforhits; apple; arrogance; community; cult; getmetraffic; helloanybodyhome; laptop; lookatme; mac; macintosh; patch; security; windows
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240241-247 next last
To: for-q-clinton
...OS X would be a lot more; however, that wouldn't mean Windows is more secure.

Again, you choose to ignore the qualified opinions of every expert in computer security who has compared the relative difficulties of writing virus for Windows and OSX... you are the one with your head in the sand.

The security by obscurity canard has been shot down by people who know, experts in the field. You go ahead and believe that your patched on patched Windows box is the equal of a more modern Operating system that was built with security in mind. The evidence is in... Mac OSX IS more secure than Windows.

221 posted on 08/25/2005 11:56:09 AM PDT by Swordmaker (Beware of Geeks bearing GIFs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: for-q-clinton
Currently Europeen cars have a higher defect rate than Japanese and even US made cars.

You are assuming that my VW was made in Europe. It wasn't. I think it was made in Mexico. The VW Fox that we had before that was made in Brazil.

Of course that's not to say VWs haven't had any problems lately. The power window system in some fairly recent Golfs, Jettas, and Bugs had a part that would frequently snap, causing the window to vanish into the door. My point was not to get into a lenghty debate on the merits or flaws of VWs (and they, too, have some flaws as I mentioned in the previous sentence) but to point out that the things that liberals and hippies are known for buying are sometimes very good products.

But the newer Europeen cars have issues because they started putting in all the fancy gagedtry and have had issues with version 1.0 products (just like Mac and windows...hey see it relates).

Well, VWs are at the low end of European cars and don't always have a lot of gadgets, but they are moving in that direction. For example, the power window problem I mentioned is a non-issue with my car because it doesn't have power windows. I don't think you can buy a VW without power windows these days. I also have a manual transmission, as does my wife's much newer Passat. The only "defect" I've noticed in the Passat was that the panel under the front of the car to control air flow is easily ripped off by branches and such. Other than that, the '03 Passat made in Germany has been solid, too. If VWs start to have real quality problems, I'll happily switch to something else.

222 posted on 08/25/2005 11:56:52 AM PDT by Question_Assumptions (`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: bizzyblog

What is "Mac?"


And why would I need one when I have a computer?


223 posted on 08/25/2005 11:57:36 AM PDT by trubluolyguy (Ew. This tastes like a monkey. A monkey that's past his prime. "Chris Griffin")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker
Why would that be? The problem would only exist if the user had installed and run the trojan program

Ok, I guess that exploit was too complicated for simple Mac folks to understand. Let me make it so that even a Macaholic can understand. Forgive me for assuming you understood, you know what happens when one assumes? And for that I apologize.

Here it is in pretty simple terms. 1) Grandma turns on Mac. 2) Grandma is smart enough to update to the latest updates so she updates via Mac's built in software update service 3) Hacker attacks her update and replaces the official Apple update with any application he wants. 4) Grandma didn't "install a trojan" she installed an approved update from Apple

As far as name changing...making my name shorter is worse than changing yours...unless you're too dim to understand what my name stands for. And once again I must apologize because I should have realized based on your incoherant posts and circular logic that you couldn't translate it. Try saying my screen name outloud to somone and they will explain to you what you just said.

I believe this horse has been beat enough. You won't open your eyes no matter what evidence is provided. And when proven wrong you just ignore your previous posts and put them out of order to fit your twisted/circular logic.

224 posted on 08/25/2005 12:01:51 PM PDT by for-q-clinton (If at first you don't succeed keep on sucking until you do succeed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: for-q-clinton
...but I'm just trying to show the way it's all about attitude and how the systems aren't being compared on an apples to apples basis.

You know, For-q, I work every day with Windows computers... and I also work with Macs. When was the last time you even LOOKED at a Mac? Ever? Touched one?

I thought not.

You don't have the experience to have an opinion on whether or not anyone is comparing "Apples to Apples" or not.

225 posted on 08/25/2005 12:02:43 PM PDT by Swordmaker (Beware of Geeks bearing GIFs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: for-q-clinton
Ok, let's say OS X 10.0 vs. 10.1.

I think that in some ways, that's closer to Windows 95 to Windows 98 but, like I said, I admit that Apple released OSX before it was ready for primetime, which is why most OSX software won't run on anything below 10.1 or 10.2. It's no secret, even if Apple's marketing department doesn't advertize it. It's old news.

If there is a legitimate reason to wait, I wait. I waited for 10.1 because 10.0 clearly wasn't ready for primetime when I tried it on a dual-boot machine. I upgraded to 10.2 and 10.3 almost immediately because they offered me important improvements and gave me no reason to be concerned. I haven't upgraded to 10.4 yet because (A) it doesn't add any features that I'm dying to have and (B) I have some concerns about the security of some of the new features.

So, no, I don't personally give Apple a pass and trust them blindly. But what makes Mac users laugh at the claim that people need to wait for SP1 before upgrading to a Microsoft product is that they simply assume, sight-unseen, that a Microsoft product is going to have major security defects that won't be properly fixed until the first Service Pack is released. I'm not so worried about the security of OSX 10.4 that I wouldn't upgrade, nor do I expect major problems to be found. My decision is as much, if not moreso, because I don't expect to get anything I really need out of it.

226 posted on 08/25/2005 12:03:32 PM PDT by Question_Assumptions (`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: Leonard210
The reason seems to rest in UNIX. Is UNIX an "obscure" OS? No. Have we seen anywhere near the security problems with UNIX as we have with Windows? No.

Further, the source code for Darwin (the OSX version of BSD Unix) and a lot of the other software on the Mac (as well as in Linux) is available for download and analysis. A clever programmer doesn't just have to guess or accidentally discover exploits in the OS. They could find them by searching through the source code for bugs and loose ends.

227 posted on 08/25/2005 12:09:05 PM PDT by Question_Assumptions (`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: Question_Assumptions
which is why most OSX software won't run on anything below 10.1 or 10.2. It's no secret, even if Apple's marketing department doesn't advertize it.

May not want to let swordswaller know that as he'll have a melt down. I believe he works in their advertizing department.

228 posted on 08/25/2005 12:09:48 PM PDT by for-q-clinton (If at first you don't succeed keep on sucking until you do succeed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: Question_Assumptions

I'm ignoring Leonards posts, but I see there seems to be an assertion that Unix doesn't have security issues. LOL. Of course Unix has been around for a very long time, so when we say Unix doesn't have security problems I guess it's all relative and depends on how long you've been in the industry. But even today Linux has had quite a few security issues. Granted not as widely known as the Windows issues, but severe issues none-the-less.


229 posted on 08/25/2005 12:12:32 PM PDT by for-q-clinton (If at first you don't succeed keep on sucking until you do succeed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: for-q-clinton
Ok, let's say OS X 10.0 vs. 10.1.

While that was a free update, it was far more than a "service pack" level update.

OSX.0 was at best a "Beta" version... and the first really viable version was the OSX.1.

In OSX, because Apple wants to keep the double entendre "X", major upgrades are designated in the first decimal column while service pack upgrades are in the second decimal column... For example OSX.4.2, where the OS is X, the major revision is .4, and the service pack level is .2.

230 posted on 08/25/2005 12:39:25 PM PDT by Swordmaker (Beware of Geeks bearing GIFs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: for-q-clinton
I'm ignoring Leonards posts, but I see there seems to be an assertion that Unix doesn't have security issues.

Leonard did not say that UNIX has no security problems. Have you no ammunition left but lies? (Stay tuned for another episode of Hey! For-Q!)
231 posted on 08/25/2005 12:41:56 PM PDT by Leonard210
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: for-q-clinton
Here it is in pretty simple terms. 1) Grandma turns on Mac. 2) Grandma is smart enough to update to the latest updates so she updates via Mac's built in software update service 3) Hacker attacks her update and replaces the official Apple update with any application he wants. 4) Grandma didn't "install a trojan" she installed an approved update from Apple

How does he do that? To do what you claim, the hacker has to have complete physical ROOT access to her computer. ROOT is turned off in OSX... a user has to first activate it then provide a separate password. Grandma is not operating in ROOT. That is the point. If he has that, your virus scenario is superfluous.

To be a "virus" it must be able to install itself without user interaction.

232 posted on 08/25/2005 12:48:12 PM PDT by Swordmaker (Beware of Geeks bearing GIFs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker
How do you apply patches to OS X? Don't you have to give your root password? The virus/exploit/trojan/malicious code is sent to grandma's PC as if it were the actual update so it gets approved by Granny because she thinks she's approving the Mac update.

The only hard part about this exploit/hack/virus/malicious attack is that you need to capture her request to Apple's update site. Which isn't trivial, but can be done.

Here's a link explaining the exploit and even giving you the files needed to pull it off. Click Here

233 posted on 08/25/2005 1:00:45 PM PDT by for-q-clinton (If at first you don't succeed keep on sucking until you do succeed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker
Apple wasn't calling 10.0 a "beta" release from what I can remember, though you are correct that it essentialy was. I don't think it was a big deal for most people, since systems were dual-boot through that period (MacOS9&OSX) and there weren't a lot of OSX applications yet, but I do think it's fair to say that Apple released OSX just a bit before OSX was ready for primetime. Apple's not perfect but I don't think anyone has been claiming that they are. And the point still remains that I essentially don't have to worry about virus attacks, worm attacks, or driver problems on my iBook, don't have to run anti-virus software, and don't have to spend much time thinking about or worrying about routine OS updates. It just works.
234 posted on 08/25/2005 1:01:07 PM PDT by Question_Assumptions (`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker
To be a "virus" it must be able to install itself without user interaction.

Once again you're splitting hairs. Do you think granny will care that it's officially called a virus or a trojan? Which by most definitions of virus a trojan is just a subset of a virus. Like the Cold and Flu are both a type of virus.

But let's consult Mariam Webster: click here

Now read item #4.

Or you can trust me and read it here:

4 : a computer program usually hidden within another seemingly innocuous program that produces copies of itself and inserts them into other programs and that usually performs a malicious action (as destroying data).

So to make this a "virus" all you have to do is turn granny's computer into the host attacking other Macs on her network. This way you won't have to leave your Mac on listening for Software Updates. Instead you use Granny's computer to do it. Just install the client software on her computer and you officially have a virus.

235 posted on 08/25/2005 1:07:06 PM PDT by for-q-clinton (If at first you don't succeed keep on sucking until you do succeed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: visitor

PING...your son would love to chime in on this topic!


236 posted on 08/25/2005 1:17:25 PM PDT by NewLand (Posting against liberalism since the 20th century!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: for-q-clinton
Once again you're splitting hairs.

No, there is a distinct difference... A Trojan relies on psychology to attack a computer, a virus replicates and installs itself on the target computers. Granny's machine will not install this on other computers without THAT user's intervention. There is no vector.

Without the "victim software package" the client computer will not connect to Granny's computer. It will ignore it and connect correctly to Apple. Just because Granny's compromised computer is on the same network does not cause other Mac's on the network to spontaneously also become infected. The only computer that will download malicious software will be Granny's. Trojan, not virus.

237 posted on 08/25/2005 5:02:34 PM PDT by Swordmaker (Beware of Geeks bearing GIFs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: for-q-clinton
The virus/exploit/trojan/malicious code is sent to grandma's PC as if it were the actual update so it gets approved by Granny because she thinks she's approving the Mac update.

No, the exploit must be INSTALLED on the victim computer BEFORE any attempt at using software update will be compromised. Using Software Update as supplied by Apple cannot, even on OSX.1.2, will not connect you to a malicious server UNTIL the "victim package" has been installed to redirect the request to the malicious server. You simply fail to understand that. IF the computer is not compromised, clicking on Software Update cannot download the initial victim package unless it has somehow been sneaked onto Apple's secure site... that has to be installed, given permission to make System changes and then be run first, before "automatic" exploit is possible.

238 posted on 08/25/2005 5:11:59 PM PDT by Swordmaker (Beware of Geeks bearing GIFs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker
Actually ALL Macs will be able to download the trojan IF any computer on the network is spoofing the Apple download site.

So as I said if I configure Granny's computer to act as the Malicious spoofing server...all Macs on her network that try to download a legit patch will get the trojan/virus.

239 posted on 08/25/2005 5:12:44 PM PDT by for-q-clinton (If at first you don't succeed keep on sucking until you do succeed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker
will not connect you to a malicious server UNTIL the "victim package" has been installed to redirect the request to the malicious server

This is just wrong. Read the link and you'll see. Nothing has to be installed to redirect the unpatched OSX box to install the malicious patch.

240 posted on 08/25/2005 5:16:55 PM PDT by for-q-clinton (If at first you don't succeed keep on sucking until you do succeed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240241-247 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson