DJBandit

Join Date 04/2004

Windows or Linux or Mac?

Just my opinion

I read an interesting article by one of our comrades of JU, Thomas, which spoke of the New Microsoft, soon to be released, Windows Vista. Previously called Longhorn, Windows new OS seems to have a lot of improvements over previous Windows OS’s. While XP is the latest and best out at the moment, it’s not the safest OS out there when it comes to security from hackers, viruses, Trojans, spyware and all other types of malware that can be installed in your PC. Your other alternatives? Linux, UNIX, and Mac OS X (and other kinds of OS’s similar to Linux). These all have some serious advantages in the security arena over any of Microsoft Windows versions. But there are some things that make these OS’s different from each other, differences that can decided who will most likely use them and which one will be used the most. In this case Microsoft Windows, mostly 98 SE, 2000 and XP, sit at the throne today with about 80% to 90% of the home PC’s running one and at times 2 of them. What does this tell you? Well, either everyone is too stupid to know how to use a computer with Linux and probably should drop computers all together or maybe Microsoft offers something (or things) that Linux can’t, yet.

In futuristic movies like Star Wars and TV shows like Star Trek, everyone, including young children, can use computers and manipulate, alter and/or better them as easy as changing the empty toilet paper role in the bathroom. But that is not the case in the real world we live in. Computers have only been out for so many years and were eventually introduced to homes and offices years later. So the truth is computer technology has come a long way in such a short time, but too fast for most people to understand them. The average person barely knows how to clean a mouse or how it’s even connected to the PC. The fact that the connections on both the PC and the device are color coded for ease of plug and play makes it obvious. Heck most people don’t get the concept of “plug and play”; they think it has something to do with games.

To many people, a computer is about as easy to use as setting the clock on a VCR (biggest head-ache ever created). You can go about talking about Windows to anyone and most people have an idea of what you’re talking about, computers. Try doing that with Linux to average people you don’t know. You’ve got better chances of finding out how to put the time on a VCR than having an understandable conversation about Linux. Heck, most people probably wouldn’t notice the difference between Windows and Mac OS X compared to Linux. They do seem to have the same visual platform. To a computer savvy person the difference is obvious.

I believe (this is my opinion based on info I have researched) that 9 out of 10 people would pick Windows over Linux and 6 out of 10 would pick Windows over Mac. Why? Let’s see:

1) Easy installation and upgrade of software.

a) Microsoft – Piece of cake.

Mac – Very easy as well.
c) Linux – I have heard of the occasional software that is fairly easy to install but rare, otherwise each file that composes the programs has to be manually installed in its folder and the configured.

2) Customer support.

a) Microsoft – Just call the 1-800 number.

Mac – Same as Microsoft
c) Linux – You will have to do a lot of goggling to find help with Linux, bits and pieces from different sites, if you can understand the info on the site. No 1-800 number. Good luck.

3) Software availability.

a) Microsoft – Has the most software available.

Mac – Not as many as MS but some of the best.
c) Linux – Most software for Linux is usually basic, free, alternatives to the expensive ones for MS and/or Mac. I many cases these also run on Windows. Not as many though.

4) Games.

a) Microsoft – That’s what Windows excels on.

Mac – Not that many but still have some.
c) Linux – Nope, no games. Sorry gamer, Linux creators do not have people like you in mind.

5) Security.

a) Microsoft – Not the best.

Mac – Almost as good as Linux.
c) Linux – The best there is so far, it’s highly know for it’s security features.

6) Stability and Reliability.

a) Microsoft – Windows can be very unstable at times so this makes it a not so reliable system compared to Linux. Still not that bad.

Mac – it is much more stable than Windows, but it does have its glitches every now and then. Nothing is perfect, not even Linux.
c) Linux – It’s a very stable system with hardly any glitches, if installed properly.

So, out of those 6 qualities in an OS, what would the average person, most likely, go for when buying the OS or a computer with one? I would, personally, have to say the first 4 with the 5th one in mind. Problems with computers are so common that most people will simply learn to deal with them as they go or will have someone help them with it. Even though both Windows and Mac are very well know PC’s (by this I mean the OS), Windows has a small advantage over Mac when it comes to being more out there, specially due to most software being promoted to work on Windows than anything else and games are the one thing people use Windows for. Linux is just not game friendly and software, well people tend to trust name-brand items for fear of not being able to use the product without customer service and these two go hand in hand. I, myself, am very edgy of unknown brand-names and the prices on them, free only makes it even scarier. Examples;

Newspapers: while there are free papers almost anywhere you go in the US, people are more likely to pay for one because free ones will not give away info that another newspaper is charging for because it cost money just to get the story.

Water: while there are water fountains in many places like parks, hospitals, schools and Gov’t building that are free, chances are the water is not clean or filtered; the machines themselves probably don’t even work right. Bottled water is filtered and if not it would be false advertisement and a lawsuit waiting to happen.

Get my point? Free isn’t always better, especially in today’s world where everyone is out to make a buck. Not that Linux and most of the software for it is exactly free. While you may not pay to acquire them, you will pay the price when you try to install them, even with experience in some cases. I would rather pay for ease, which is almost the same as paying someone else to install it for you on Linux, but you might need to keep that person around for every installation, glitch and question.

So you see, comparing Linux to Windows to the average person is apple and oranges. Even though they are both OS’s and both serve the basic same functions, they just aren’t the same in terms of how PC’s are used today in most homes. Those in the IT business are smart enough to know which OS serves their purpose best and know when an upgrade is necessary, so in reality the real focus should be on the average user which, on average, does not have an IT bone in their body. With that said, people like new stuff, otherwise technology would never get better, and because of that and the main qualities that average people look for in computers, I believe that Vista will be a successful sales venture for Microsoft. Maybe not within the first few days, weeks and maybe even months, but it will catch on faster than most people think.

Most people don’t think that eye candy is that important. I think these people live in an alternate reality, because people are obsessed with looks. From hair styles, to make-up, their bodies, clothing, shoes, cars, phones (home and mobile), houses, and yes, even their PC’s. When was the last time you saw someone not having a screen background of something they like? Looks and money is all that matters now a days. Just look at all the mods for PC’s. Microsoft is appealing to what people like, giving them a chance to have a PC style of their own, just like what the creators of Stardock had in mind when creating all of their great programs. I, myself, am sold to all the eye candy, it makes it easier on the eyes, easier to find and it just looks plain cool. So eye candy is more important than most think and will be a big factor in the sales of Vista. So long as Microsoft gives them a good OS to go with all the fancy looks, they should do just fine. And judging by the article linked on Thomas’s article on JU, it seems they doing just that. Let’s just wait and see, give them the benefit of the doubt, before we condemn Microsoft as more of a habit than truly finding out whether Vista is good or not.

In my next article I will talk about how a guy on _______ gave a very bias review of the article from _______ and Vista itself based on his fanboy love for Linux. He claims to have 20 years of experience with OS’s so he’s ideal for reviewing Vista. To bad that his 20 years are only about technology and none about writing reviews. Till next article.

DJBandit

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

I don't consider myself a Windows fanboy cause I would by an Apple computer if I could just to have both. I will also try Linux one day since I plane on opening my own computer shop in the future and it will be part of what I will give as service.

Successfully updated karma reason!

1) Easy installation and upgrade of software.

a) Microsoft – Piece of cake.

Mac OS is so much easier to install compared to Windows, it's not even funny. Installing software on Mac OS usually just involved copying one file (which is actually a folder but treated as a file by the GUI) to any place you like. And you can move it around as you please, even while the program is running. Un-installers, except for system software, don't exist. You just throw the file (folder) into the trash can or otherwise delete it.

Installers are only used for system software (that includes Virtual PC) and games but are mostly not needed there either (I have copied the same StarCraft installation from Mac to Mac since 2000.

I would say:

a) acceptable

easy
c) difficult

Mac OS wins.
Linux loses.

2) Customer support.

a) Microsoft – Just call the 1-800 number.

Same for all three. If you buy Linux from Novell, who I think compare to Microsoft and Apple, company-wise, you get the same perks. The only difference is that with Linux you have the option of going without support (and get the software for free).

a) just call

just call
c) just call (or get a distribution without support for cheaper or free)

Linux wins.

3) Software availability.

a) Microsoft – Has the most software available.

Correct. You just might want to mention that the vast majority of what is available for Linux also runs on Mac OS.

Windows wins.
Linux loses.

4) Games.

a) Microsoft – That’s what Windows excels on.

Mac – Not that many but still have some.
c) Linux – Nope, no games. Sorry gamer, Linux creators do not have people like you in mind.

Correct. Linux does have a few games. And Wine seems to run most games, at least the ones I have seen. (I'm not a big gamer.)

Windows wins.
Linux loses.

5) Security.

a) Microsoft – Not the best.

Mac – Almost as good as Linux.
c) Linux – The best there is so far, it’s highly know for it’s security features.

Security is BSD's domain. Linux just profits from being a moving target. Mac OS has several security problems, but does have a vastly superior permissions system (difference between root and administrator group, different software domains etc.).

Windows loses.

6) Stability and Reliability.

a) Microsoft – Windows can be very unstable at times so this makes it a not so reliable system compared to Linux. Still not that bad.

All three are really stable. I would give the win to UNIX. I haven't seen a Solaris box crash in a long time. And when it did crash, it was after serving dozens of simultaneous users for several weeks or months.

Mac OS seems more stable than Windows in normal home use though. I reboot my PC at work more often than I reboot my Macs at home. And I'm not counting updates here (the only reason I ever reboot my Macs are updates).

Linux doesn't support "sleeping" very well, which means I would give the win to Mac OS.

a) stable

very stable and sleeps
c) very stable

Mac OS wins.

Disclaimer: I am a Mac user, a Mac fan, was a Linux user, and use Windows at work. (Some here know where I work and can verify that I can claim to know a lot about Windows, at the very least enough to judge it, I am sure).

Successfully updated karma reason!

I will disagree on the stabilty. Having used Mac and WIndows, I can tell you that Macs Suffer Kernal Panics almost as often as Windows gets BSODs. I do have to agree with Andrew on the installation (and of the installation of software as well). Ease of use? For the end user, they just have to remember that one task bar is at the bottom (but can be moved to the top) and the other is at the top.

Personally, and I will deny this after this message self destructs, I like Macs better due to the Software and OS installation issues. But Windows pays my bills.

Successfully updated karma reason!

The thing about kernel panics and BSODs is true, yet I have seen neither in a long time. But Windows does require reboots after certain installations, after a few days it starts behaving oddly (and is fine again after a reboot), and slows down considerably after a few days of service. I count all this as stability issues. Windows has them, Mac OS does not. (My iMac, which serves two users via fast user switching needs a reboot every two months or so, and then only because of system updates.)

As for remembering where the taskbar is, that is not the ease of use problem. Try configuring the machine, using the system preferences or control panel items. You will notice the difference. Mac OS is a lot easier to configure.

Apart from that using Windows always seems like a journey from one alert box to the next for me. It constantly informs me about something, often twice in a row, suddenly pops up windows or notices, individual windows steal focus whenever they want, apparently, and IE seems to want to drive me nuts with its information and notice boxes.

It's difficult to select specific text in a program, because Windows will assume that I want to select a little bit more or less than I indicated, when I double-click on a word, Windows will happily select an entire string of text, not much bothered by punctuation or brackets (which indicate an end of the word, obviously).

When a space follows a word, Windows will select the space as well when I double-click the word, but not if there is no space (but a line-break or something), making it a guessing game of whether there will be a space behind the word or not when I insert it somewhere.

Microsoft Office applications seem to use their own system for cutting and pasting, sometimes asking me whether I want to copy and paste what I just selected or something I selected earlier (why???). It's inconsistent too. Unfortunately, Office shows that behaviour on Mac OS too!

And try moving an Explorer window to the bottom of the screen, so that the file menu will open downwards but the "new" submenu will open upwards. Then try selecting the submenu item floating above the window menu. It's impossible! Nice bug, Microsoft.

Whenever I print something some stupid yellow notice informs me that I printed something. When I delete a shortcut Windows tells me that I am erasing a shortcut and not the actual program, and when I delete a folder tree and answer that I want to delete everything in the folder, the same question comes up again and again for different categories of sub-folders. It's a big mess.

Vista actually cleans up some of the stuff. But lots of idiocies remain.

Windows update is so intertwined with IE that I cannot use IE in a safe mode without breaking Windows update. And I cannot switch to another browser, because I want to use IE. (Vista fixes that.)

Many applications require admin privileges to install but users should not be admins. (Vista fixes that too.)

And the clipboard will work fine until Outlook has something to do with it. (A known bug, apparently.)

It's really a mess. Microsoft wanted Windows to be too many things for too many people. And some features or bugs are really just stupid.

Personally, and I will deny this after this message self destructs, I like Macs better due to the Software and OS installation issues. But Windows pays my bills.

Same here.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I personally (currently) have the following computers in my home:

1 e-Machine (for the wife) running Windows XP Home
1 HP Laptop (probably best described as a portable desktop, though) for myself.
1 800 Mhz Ubuntu Linux Box (for messing with and learning purposes)
1 Mac Mini 1.5Ghz all the trimmings available on a decent Mac Mini (for my creative work and home personal use)

Here is my personal assessment of the three operating systems, given my experience over the last 12 years with various computer hardware/software, from Mandrake to Knoppix to Debian to Ubuntu to Suse, from 95 to ME to 2000 to XP Home and Pro, and from mac OS 9 to OS X...

1. Windows is a good operating system. It is useful in the enterprise environment, and I expect to see Windows-based PC's in the enterprise markets for the forseeable future. People are used to them, yes even the glitches, and Microsoft seems to be looking towards an improved aesthetic. However, personally, windows still "feels" kind of clunky. Kind of like an old mustang. Powerful, sometimes nice to look at, depending on the owner, but not generally comfortable.

1. Mac OSX is to me the best operating system on the market today for a couple of things: 1) Graphics and Web Development (except for .net dev, yes I know you .net fanboys are out there cursing me right now) 2) Pro-Audio Applications. No contest. Pro Tools is the most powerful Studio Application there is, and it works best on a Mac. Period. 3) Personal Home Use. For me it is simply the most enjoyable operating system to use.

3. Linux is fun for when I want to geek out. It is stable, and I like to tinker with it, when I have the time, but I still do not think it will be ready for prime time until the community at large agrees on standards such as installation procedures (lowest common denominator). I think that in order for linux to break through as either a Enterprise or Personal use powerhouse, it still has to break free from the confines of the architecture that makes it so great, thus, it may be left to nerds for the forseeable future.

This is my own personal assesment, and I really do believe that each of these OS's has their own strengths and weaknesses, I also think that each should be used in their most effective environment.

Nuff from me.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Under that definition, I will agree with you. I was thinking strictly of Crashes tho.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Sembetu

I agree with you totally. I too agree that each OS has it's ups and downs and should be used accordingly. I chose Windows cause of it being the one most often used everywhere I go. I'm sure Apple is a great system, and I plan on using one someday when I can afford it, I mean why not. However, linux is not for me, at least not yet. I like easy, that's what Windows gives me, and even with all the problems they have (which I personally have hardly had any problems with) I still like it. I don't mind all the updates, only makes my PC safer. No matter how much you protect yourself, things can still happen but I believe that most problems reported by average users of Windows are usually things that could have been prevented with some extra care like virus programs (you'd be surprised how many people don't have them or don't update them), spyware, firewalls and not accessing sites they shouldn't. All in all I'll stick to Windows for now. Bashing it the way the guy in my other article did will not convince me to switch over. I can be bought by how good you product is not how bad the other one is. Kinda like what happens in political section of this site.

Successfully updated karma reason!

thomassen

Join Date 01/2003

+10

6) Stability and Reliability.
a) Microsoft – Windows can be very unstable at times so this makes it a not so reliable system compared to Linux. Still not that bad.

Here we must difference between WindowsXP and the previous versions. XP is very stabile. What causes most of the BSODs are bad drivers, but you can't really tell that from the cryptic crash message that appears when it happends.
Macs has got an advantage here as they are run on a spesific set of hardware.
As for Linux,.. as mentioned: if installed properly. I belive that too be the key point there. if installed properly. It's not the easiest thing to do. At least not compared to XP and OSX.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Chasbo

Join Date 01/2005

+1033

I used OSX Tiger for 8 plus hours a day for quite awhile. Every day I started with rebooting. I did this because if I didn't the OS would either bog down or freeze or just act whacky. We were on a medium sized network. The computer was an I Mac with almost a gig of RAM so there shouldn't have been any problem The guy who installed everything and performed maint. has a degree and is certified blahh blahh blahh. Macs/OSX ain't perfect. I KNOW FROM USING THEM A LOT! My XP machine at home ain't perfect either but I love it and I love WB's and Stardock. Configured right the XP machine ROCKS! Linux is for people who are geeker than me and I have become a sort of a geek myself - just ask my wife. Check this out. Literally everything that this guy talks about has happened to me.

http://www.shoutwire.com/viewstory/5452/Why_Macs_Suck_A_Video_Rant

Successfully updated karma reason!

Every day I started with rebooting. I did this because if I didn't the OS would either bog down or freeze or just act whacky.

You see your mistake? While many people are used to daily reboots the Mac way does not rely on them.

What you describe is typical. Many users don't realise that Mac OS won't act funnily or freeze if running for extended periods of time.

I have two Macs and owned another one before them. Ever since OS X (and NEXTSTEP before), a reboot has become a _rare_ thing. By rare I mean every two months at most.

Not a daily thing certainly. It's more of a big moment.

I don't have that with my Windows PC at work.

Successfully updated karma reason!

From our friends over at C|Net:

Mac OS X hacked in less than 30 minutes

Gaining root access to a Mac is "easy pickings," according to an individual who won an OS X hacking challenge last month by gaining root control of a machine using an unpublished security vulnerability.

I KNEW IT! So did all Windows users. Since OSX is built on Unix (a la Linux) I wonder how the hobby OS crowd will discount this.

My favorite quote from the article is: "The only thing which has kept Mac OS X relatively safe up until now is the fact that the market share is significantly lower than that of Microsoft Windows or the more common Unix platforms...If this situation was to change, in my opinion, things could be a lot worse on Mac OS X than they currently are on other operating systems," Archibald said at the time.

http://news.com.com/Mac+OS+X+hacked+in+less+than+30+minutes/2100-1002_3-6046197.html?tag=nefd.top

Link

Successfully updated karma reason!

This is true. When I was in the mixed environment, when a DOS user (this was pre 95) called, we asked (always first) have you rebooted. When a Mac user called, we asked, have you rebuilt the desktop?

Successfully updated karma reason!

#11 by markdotnet
Monday, March 06, 2006

OOps! Sorry Andrew, gotta mark Mac down based upon this article: Link

Mark made me look, but that is bad! And where is Apple on this?

Successfully updated karma reason!

thomassen

Join Date 01/2003

+10

What you describe is typical. Many users don't realise that Mac OS won't act funnily or freeze if running for extended periods of time.

What? So it becomes more stable if you run it for longer, but unstable if you run it for a short period?

Successfully updated karma reason!

thomassen

Join Date 01/2003

+10

Chasbo: that rant was pretty funny. He should do a rant on Windows and Linux as well.

Successfully updated karma reason!

#5 by Developer Sembetu
Mon, March 06, 2006 0:35 PM
Mac OSX is to me the best operating system on the market today for a couple of things: 1) Graphics and Web Development

I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one. I think that's a common misconception because most pro's use Macs for graphics. Photoshop and say Dreamweaver both work the same on a PC and a Mac. Personally I think it's easier on a PC for one reason; the second mouse button

As for the audio, I completly agree.

Successfully updated karma reason!

What? So it becomes more stable if you run it for longer, but unstable if you run it for a short period?

No, that's not what I said. Read it again.

Photoshop and say Dreamweaver both work the same on a PC and a Mac. Personally I think it's easier on a PC for one reason; the second mouse button.

Excuse me? Why is it easier on a PC than on a Mac because of a second mouse button? I don't get it. If the number of mouse buttons is the difference, why would you change computers rather than mice?

Buying a new mouse costs less than 20 quid, I thought. I like my Apple Pro Mouse (which has one button), but if I thought a two-button mouse would be a huge advantage, I would buy a two-button mouse (but I wouldn't use a Windows PC instead of my Mac, that would be stupid).

Markdotnet:

I think that guy used a security hole in sshd. Note that sshd is not running by default on Mac OS X. The security hole likely exists in all implementations of sshd, including the Windows version.

The point is that Windows actually has Windows-specific security holes PLUS those added by packages like sshd. And some of the Windows components with vulnerabilities are actually present after a standard install. That's the difference.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Chasbo

Join Date 01/2005

+1033

Man oh man I shoulda been more specific. The reason I booted my Mac everyday was because after it was booted it ran better. There were days it wasn't booted but I guarantee you that if that machine wasn't booted for a week it would have just sat there locked up like Fort Knox. We used Photoshop, Indesign, Illustrator, Acrobat and Quark. I worked a lot with PDF's that were for print publishing so you needed a powerful machine because the PDF's had to be at higher DPI's, better quality, larger files and manipulating them took up more resources on the machine. OSX was wonderful, the Mac was wonderful, don't get me wrong. There were days that I could hear the MAC startup up sound all around me, the sound of other machines being restarted. If you use the machine A LOT and switch back and forth between applications that use up a lot of memory you are going to slow the machine down.

Successfully updated karma reason!

#16 by ExodusCrow

1. I think that's a common misconception because most pro's use Macs for graphics.

2. Photoshop and say Dreamweaver both work the same on a PC and a Mac.

Okay, I am not saying this because I am a Mac fanboy. I promise. As a matter of fact, until about a year ago, I had used Windows-based PC's more often than Macs. With that said... I currently work by day on a PC and by night on a Mac, and here are the specs on my two very healthy machines.

The PC is an HP laptop with 1 Ghz of Ram and a 2.8 Ghz Pentium 4 Processor, the rest on that laptop is just gravy, but that ought to get the job done...

My Mac on the other hand is only a Mac mini with a 1.5 Ghz Power Pc Processor and 1 Gig of Ram.

Let me assure you, that not only does my Mac boot up quicker, it opens Photoshop Illustrator, Flash, and Dreamweaver quicker than my PC, which I work on ALL DAY. Both machines are mine, and I have them very stable and nice. Like I said, The programs listed open quicker. In addition, the color is EXCELLENT on my mac and GOOD on PC. Also, the feel of the desktop while in use is VERY smooth, in comparison to a more static feel on my Windows machine.

3. Personally I think it's easier on a PC for one reason; the second mouse button.

As far as the second mouse button, I apologize for that, because I forget that the vast majority of the Mac using population does not have a Mighty Mouse (IMHO the most wonderful mouse on the market..30 scroll etc...)

/////////////////

In any case, like I said I am not a fanboy, as I give equal time to both platforms, however, I stand by my assessment of the professional uses for the Mac.

Sembetu

Successfully updated karma reason!

I think I see a Mac laptop in my future, and a Windows one as well. This is great info.

Sembetu

What would be your reason for using 2 different PCs? Or why do you use Windows during the day? Just curious.

Leauki

I can understand your love for Mac computers, but you have to admit that even Mac has it's problems and what Markdotnet linked proved it. I do love how you try to find a good excuse to show that it really want Mac the problem. But I think I will believe security researcher Neil Archibald instead. That doesn't mean Mac sucks, just that it also has to admit problems. Hehe.

Here we must difference between WindowsXP and the previous versions. XP is very stabile. What causes most of the BSODs are bad drivers, but you can't really tell that from the cryptic crash message that appears when it happends.Macs has got an advantage here as they are run on a spesific set of hardware.As for Linux,.. as mentioned: if installed properly. I belive that too be the key point there. if installed properly. It's not the easiest thing to do. At least not compared to XP and OSX.

I agree, after messing around for a while with XP Pro with SP2, it seems much more stable than before. I have had problems but I am using a screwed up MoBo that I have to change. The problem is store here in Puerto Rico do not have a lot of alternatives when it comes to PC parts so I have to go with what they got cause I have no credit card. That will change once I go back to the states this summer.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I think I see a Mac laptop in my future, and a Windows one as well. This is great info.

If you want both, dont buy Both. Buy the Mac and get Microsoft Office Pro. it comes with Virtual PC and you can then run a windows computer on your Mac Desktop. It is very slick. Caution: If you do, get LOTS of RAM!

Successfully updated karma reason!

Don't believe authorities, make up your own mind.

The "exploit" the "hacker" was talking about was the fact that he already had a user account. It is not an excuse to point out that the article failed to mention that and pretended that the "hacker" started from nothing.

Comparing how easy it is to hack a Mac compared to a Windows PC is only useful when both are held to the same standards. But this guy started with a user account.

Believing Neil Archibald doesn't change that fact, I'm afraid.

So don't just believe him, make up your own mind. The story as presented was simply not true.

There is a vulnerability in sshd. Sshd is not enabled on Macs by default. And the exploit only works when you the attacker has a user account on the machine. (Presumably sshd will have to be running as root as well.)

What Markdotnet linked proved only that one shouldn't enable sshd AND give strangers user accounts allowing them to log on.

Why do you dismiss simple facts as "love" for Mac computers? I don't get it.

I didn't say anything about Macs having no problems either, so why are you implying that I did?

Successfully updated karma reason!

"Firstly, the hack was that of privilege escalation, not a pure remote exploit. The web site author had enabled SSH, the Unix "Secure Shell" tool that has replaced telnet as a means for accessing networked machines from the command line. He then configured an LDAP (Lightweight Directory Access Protocol) database and added a web-based interface so that visitors to the site could add their own shell accounts to the system."

"Needless to say, most web servers are not set up with the ability to give out free shell accounts to anyone who wants one. SSH is not even enabled by default on OS X, although server administrators can choose to do so if they wish. So the "hacking" contest was not very indicative of the security of an OS X computer, even a web server, that is set up open to the Internet."

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060306-6321.html

Successfully updated karma reason!

Will keep that in mind. But might by both anyways so that my wife can have her own laptop. Hehe.

The "exploit" the "hacker" was talking about was the fact that he already had a user account. It is not an excuse to point out that the article failed to mention that and pretended that the "hacker" started from nothing.

I know, I know, I read the other commonts already. Still it is a problem. I would like to, however, see something like this without the SSH active.

Why do you dismiss simple facts as "love" for Mac computers? I don't get it.I didn't say anything about Macs having no problems either, so why are you implying that I did?

Hey I'm only messing with you. I know you are not a Mac fanboy. Otherwise you would be putting Windows down like it was Hitler. You have actually opened my eyes to the idea of getting a Mac laptop someday soon.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Oh, ok.

Successfully updated karma reason!