Re: Re: Intel, the end of Mac security?
Quote:
Originally posted here by chsh
Umm, well, for one thing, I've seen absolutely nothing to indicate that Apple will be switching architectures, merely suppliers.
You should watch the World Wide Develepor Conference keynote address where the switch was announced. Steve Jobs is using Mac OSX during the presentation for his slides, iTunes, and other example applications. After he announces they will be switching to Intel processors, he shoes the Mac system properties, where it clearly shows an x86 processor is being used.
Quote:
There are a lot of things Apple isn't just going to abandon (like Altivec, etc), not to mention the expense of converting applications to a new architecture if these misunderstandings were indeed the case.
Again, in the keynote speech at WWDC, Steve Jobs announces that the Mac OS and a huge majority of its applications have been in developement for x86 processors for over 5 years. The example proving this? The fact that he ran through all the programs commonly used on Mac OSX during the presentation, on his x86 Apple computer.
Quote:
Even apart from all of that, assuming they WERE switching to x86, it would not matter, as Spyware, Trojans, etc., are all written for the OS.
This is the first true thing you've mentioned in this post. I still do not believe Mac users will have a lot to worry about initially, given both the nature of BSD and the fact that Mac users aren't automatically escalated to 'root' or 'admin' accounts by default.
Robert Peaslee
Re: Re: Re: Intel, the end of Mac security?
Quote:
Originally posted here by nihil
Where is your evidence for this statement?................Apache is:
1. Something you have to buy separately
2. Something that you run deliberately.
3. Something that you have to set up.
Not on a whole host of common linux distributions.
Quote:
I have a Windows2000 Professional box I built a couple of years ago..............IIS runs by default unless you turn it off so I think that your assertion about Apache is badly flawed. People have been running IIS by default and without knowing it.............that makes them "soft users" (sure, it is an MS failing, but it is compounded by users)
Redhat circa the same ancient (in computing terms) years you are mentioning came with Apache and WuFTPd running by default. Compare like systems if you're going to bring out old service-packless operating systems.
Quote:
Well don't you fall into that category yourself? "Vulnerabilities" are irrelevant............."Exploits" are what do the damage. ;)
No, I'm asking for proof instead of wild speculation. That you don't understand the difference is rather plain and quite obvious.
Quote:
Originally posted here by PeasleeR
You should watch the World Wide Develepor Conference keynote address where the switch was announced. Steve Jobs is using Mac OSX during the presentation for his slides, iTunes, and other example applications. After he announces they will be switching to Intel processors, he shoes the Mac system properties, where it clearly shows an x86 processor is being used.
You're right, I probably should. I haven't seen any WWDC coverage, only the news reports, none of which explicitly stated this.
Quote:
This is the first true thing you've mentioned in this post. I still do not believe Mac users will have a lot to worry about initially, given both the nature of BSD and the fact that Mac users aren't automatically escalated to 'root' or 'admin' accounts by default.
Actually, it is not the first true thing I mentioned in my post. Suggesting I am lying simply because I haven't seen the specific footage you have is stupid. Everything I wrote in that post was true, hence why it was not categorical, and was experiential ("Everything I've seen" vs "This is the way it is").