This guy must be an embarrassment even for ZdNet. The crap he comes up with would be ignored if someone came up with it on
Apple, insecurity, and x86 In this post, Paul comes out with gems like:
but the real killer is where he argues that the Power chip is more secure than the x86 because of some unspecified hardware difference:The 3.6Ghz P4 isn't remotely performance competitive with the 2.7Ghz G5. What happens is that applications written for x86 run better on x86
... Apple didn't go Intel because it's faster and they certainly didn't go Intel because it offers a quicker route to lower power requirements for laptops
If you still have any respect for this guy, lets look at some more posts:However, if an exploitable software problem is found, the exploit itself is no more difficult to write for Linux on x86 than for Windows on x86 because such exploits are hardware, not OS, dependent. Those hardware weaknesses do not, however, exist in the same way or to the same effect in non Intel chipsets like those of the G5, the UltraSPARC, Cell, or Xenon. As a result finding a part two method on these CPU sets is at least as difficult, if not significantly more so, than part one. That's why there have been hundreds of widely publicized Solaris and MacOS X vulnerabilities for which there are no actual exploits and therefore no victims.
Resurrection Time? In which our genius suggests reviving APL to make it easier to program multi-core CPUs.
Microsoft to buy Red Hat? Say it ain't so Don't even bother reading this, it is as stupid as the headlines sounds.
Huh? Mactel, for real? "Niagara rocks. You want low power use for a laptop?"
I could go on, but it is too tiresome. Just ignore everything he says and you'll be better off.