Actually no, they're not. Every Mac has a set list of apps, with a set list of libraries etc. It's a mono culture. Not to mention the fact that Apple are insane about secrecy, so Mac users often don't know if there's a vulnerability even reported to Apple, let alone if Apple are doing anything about it, or when it's due if they are. Notice the common theme of "being subservient to Apple's whims". With Linux anyone can submit the fix, which will then be adopted as needed by all the different distros, and within a couple of days at most it's fixed. Also the fact that Linux is so varied, often an exploit or vulnerability found on one distro may not affect another, or not affect a different DE or WM.

Let's assume the Mac share is around the same as Linux, both close to 10% which I think ain't too far off. An attacker can plan an attack on something they're guaranteed exists because it comes out the factory that way on every model, identical, with a slow acting vendor so the windows stays open for a while.....or they can plan an attack on a fast moving target that may only affect 30% of machines, and the window of opportunity will be gone within a day of it being noticed.

Both Mac and Linux users tend not to run any protection software like Windows users NEED just to have their system stay alive till lunchtime, so any infection if successful will likely go unnoticed. Both Mac and Linux users often feel their systems are immune. In the case of Mac users, the people who can afford Macs have money (or at least HAD money before they bought their Mac) so combined with a blind spot for self protection they should be a ripe juicy target. Yet, apart from the odd story like this one which is self inflicted by Apple, it's still rare.

OSX is UNIX, which is a HUGE advantage over Windows, but the closed Apple mono culture prevents it from being used to it's fullest.

You can hardly blame people for not allowing automatic updates, given how MS abuse them. Critical updates SHOULD be about the security of the OS, it should be an essential patch to fix some exploit. That's all. Yet MS decided that it was "critical" for Windows users to be able to tell if their copy was legit with the WGA. Even the word "advantage" being used in the title is wrong. It's a critical ADVANTAGE for MS's revenue stream to be able to tell that, end users (with the exception of corporate setups who could be audited) don't care.

Another news story about a known exploit that has been updated in Vista but it won't be updated in XP? Is that the users fault too? I guess the blame lies with the user in not spending a lot of money to buy a sticker with a new number on it for a new OS they don't want (if they did want it, they'd have upgraded already). Which is a perfect example of why the proprietary model will fail. It's based around the needs of the companies profits rather than the end users needs.

Microsoft did try the option of restricting updates to only WGA approved licensed copies, but were slammed for contributing (even more than they already do) to the chaos on the internet. They had to backtrack and allow unlicensed copies to receive critical updates, while holding back the optional ones like new features, or new versions of apps like IE and WMP for WGA approved PCs.

But as we all know, MS are never responsible for their own mess, it's always looking for others to blame.

I agree with you, we do need to put it in perspective.

ONE small Linux botnet found recently because of badly configured systems? It's a tiny drop in the ocean. Is that in any way close to sharing blame with Windows for their 1,000's of LARGE botnets being actively used? Microsoft like to spread FUD about Windows market share being almost total, with Linux and OSX hardly getting a mention. They're right, but it seems they're talking about the botnet scourge ALL PC users have to suffer, regardless of our choice of OS. Microsoft have the malware and botnet market all but sewn up, thankfully it's a market no other OS wants. Given how Linux and OSX are built it's something they'll never grow into either, regardless of how popular they get.

Indeed, the recent story about ONE Linux botnet, and another recent story about ONE Mac botnet is equal to the 100's if not 1,000's of ACTIVE Windows botnets, past, present and future. As much as Microsoft enjoy a good monopoly when it's their name on the door, this is one they earned without corruption by making terrible software.

EVERY country needs to be doing this, and not making it voluntary either. Any problem on the internet affects everyone connected to it. Cutting off PCs in one country has limited effect in isolation. Considering botnets are an exclusive Windows problem, Microsoft should be forced to pay for the scheme too. It's their mess after all.

I'm curious about how MS will respond to this if it comes into being. On one hand they'll lose a large number of users, after all, does anyone outside the MS camp really believe that it's not gonna be 100% infected Windows PC's that will be affected? What will MS do?

Will they offer discounted or free vouchers for repairs, upgrades etc? How many of these machines will be unlicensed? Will they pay to fix unlicensed copies of Windows if the owners either have no money to spend on a sticker with a number on it? In the current economic climate you can't blame them. Is a subsidy to clean the PC worth the ISP's time and hassle knowing it'll be infected again by the end of the week at the latest, and they'll have to repeat the same warning and threat of disconnection all over again. Will they provide paid anti-malware software? Who pays for all of this? Will they provide training for Windows users to at least give them a chance of having a few months online without a letter?

This would reflect badly on MS in any free press, even having to be the only ones to offer fixes is embarrassing enough. Given that MS control the mainstream media it'll go unnoticed as far as PR is concerned, but it's yet one more thing eating into their profits at a time where they're struggling.

The alternative is to lose a large number either to Linux, or off the internet altogether. Anyone who's had the internet for a while knows what it's like when it goes down for a few hours, will those people really decide the internet is not worth it?

I'm guessing the great philanthropists and all round nice people at MS are busy lobbying at every level to stop this from happening or at least water it down (notice the ISPs are being "asked" not "told"). They need to keep market share by any means necessary, ideally without spending a cent on it. The rest of the world can suffer as long as MS's interests are not hurt.

Given that Windows has all the security of a paper tank in a thunderstorm this will be hilarious to see the workload the scheme entails, and over time the number of Windows PCs in Australia still connected because they're NOT infected. They will drop like flies. Give it a few years and it'll be a Windows free zone.

Everyones user experience if different in any product or service. The higher the price, the better people expect the user experience to be. If theirs matches their expectations, they perceive it as value for money. In many products that means a good set of defaults, and a workflow you're happy with. The downside is often more expensive parts or labor when things do need tended to, on a closed system which protects the manufacturers revenue stream over your choices to do things on something you bought....ie you paid money for an ownership (supposedly) changed hands. It's a trade off that some are happy with, while others are not. Often it'll be a case by case basis too.

For me Apple gadgets (apart from being closed platforms with crazy people in charge of approving apps) are now EVERYWHERE. They've become the gadget of choice for everyone, there's no "exclusivity" left with them. Apple (like other luxury brands) have a LOT of value in the fact that only a small percentage of people can buy them, you pay the extra to attach yourself to that social clique. When you see everyone from grannies, to chavs, kids to business-people all with iPods, do you want to be thought of as just another sheep going with the crowd and unable to choose anything other than what the media tell you is the "hot" thing today? Think what happened to the Burbury brand when it became the brand of choice for hooligans.

When you buy a gadget nobody knows why you've chosen that one, just like politicians don't know which issues made you vote for them, or not vote for them. They don't know if you are tech literate and have chosen the iPod because it suits your needs better than anything else. All that counts in the vote, or the lil white earbuds. How many people are desperate to fit in and will buy the "hot" gadgets without really understanding what they're buying and how it compares to the competition? In short, there's no "look at my cool new gadget" with Apple anymore, where a non-Apple device can still do that, not to mention it's often cheaper for better spec......oh and not controlled by Apple's insane policies over what you can or can't do with YOUR device.

So, brand snobbery? Maybe, I wouldn't be seen dead with an Apple gadget for several reasons, only one of which is that I don't want to be wrongly perceived as a sheep. We all have choices, so each to their own.

"Calling people with certain beliefs gullible/funny/stupid is just cruel."

In some cases that could be true, in others, like the Scientology example, it also happens to be true. I have no problem calling a spade a spade, when if the spades are busy trying to convince people they're shovels, and want all references to spades silenced.

Exactly, a netbook is not a cheap laptop, it was never intended to be. If you buy one expecting it to be, you're gonna be disappointed. The question for me comes down to how you came by that conclusion. Did you decide for yourself or did the sales staff decide to sell you the cheapest "PC" they had even though they knew it wasn't suitable just to make the sale? Many people falling prey to these sales people and stores will be unhappy with their purchases. This is a large part of the reason why netbooks are returned. They are being mis-sold.

If you try hard enough you can convince yourself that anything is a good thing and should be protected, look at Scientology for example. It's pathetic and funny, but there's always some gullible people ready to exclaim it. There's one thing to be a fan, to accept it's pro's and con's and love it anyway, to want to see it get better. It takes an extra step to be blind to the short comings and defend stuff that's NOT in their interests using mental gymnastics. What makes it even funnier is Apple's "luxury" price tags, these people are not only defending stuff that's not in their interests, but they're paying a fortune for the privilege. As they say, "a fool and his money are easily parted".

You're missing the point, it's shiny, and Steve has given it the stamp of cool and he's the only person on the planet officially allowed to do that, so he should know cool when he sees it. That should be enough for you. Or are you a commie? /sarcasm.

I wasn't aware Google = Government, with a few exceptions like China. Any closed source application can be tracking you and you'd never know. Chances are Apple are doing the same in all sorts of ways, for the same reasons Google do....targeted advertising. They want to know more about you so they can put an advert up which is more likely to appeal to your wallet opening tendencies.

At least with Google you don't need to use Google apps to access the services, you can use open or closed source third party apps like Firefox which has an addon to limit what information Google get from you when you do use their services. More than that, you can choose not to use Google at all. With the iPhone Apple ensure that some of their apps are the ONLY option. They won't allow any competing web browser so your stuck with theirs, regardless of whether they've stuffed it with spyware or not. Same goes with iTunes, do you believe they don't track what media you have? Are you really that naieve?

Do Microsoft like or not like monopolies? They also seem a tad confused on the subject. On one hand they see no problem with their own monopolies being good for the customer, yet complain when it's other companies monopolies, that they're bad for the consumer. Is there an answer to this question that does not make Microsoft hypocrites?

Duplicating functionality? I wonder if "copy & paste" could be described as that? Maybe that's why it was missing from the iPhone when it first appeared. Then again, if it could be classed as that, Apple seem to be contradicting their own rules. /sarcasm.

Seriously, this is just one in a long list of stories which suggest Apple are barmy. Each new example of a Stalin-like appreciation of freedom sees another few previously loyal Apple customers cringe and refuse to defend Apple as they once did. People have tipping points they may not even recognize, at some point they will say "enough is enough" and take a stand against the authority figure they see as unnecessarily restricting some free choices.

Maybe Apple believe they have the smart phone market sewn up, and between the lock in and heavy marketing they can afford to piss customers off. That may well change when Android has a few years maturity on the market and Apple find themselves a niche option for people willing to pay the Apple premium. Maybe by that time the damage will be done, and Apple will have plenty of disgruntled ex-customers who won't buy Apple again, the same way Microsoft have created a LOT of ex-Windows users who won't touch Windows again.

Scientology does differ from the major religions in one obvious way, it's target audience. Religions target the poor, weak, downtrodden people who's lives are daily hell for a number of reasons, and promise them that things are reversed in Heaven, that they will be kings or queens in the afterlife if they just obey. The meek shall inherit the Earth? What a brilliant defense against an uprising. You really have to credit the leaders with covering every base to ensure their continued reign.

This is why religious leaders hold more influence among the people in poor countries. It's why some of the gullible can be convinced to die for the cause, to get the reward of a better afterlife quicker doing God's will.

Scientology targets the people with money to fund them.

I don't know much about Judaism so I'll assume you're right, but also point out that it seems to be the exception rather than the norm. Tradition seems to win over common sense in most cases. I know many religions have different branches who all believe mostly the same thing by differ on minor points. This seems to be an excuse for man to kill man, because they don't conform exactly to our views they need to die; it's always the loving caring religions huh?