Comment Re:Linux? (Score 1) 705
Yes, it is an old saw. It's also a sad fact that most of the people that say it are idiots. However, that shouldn't reflect on the statement itself, at least not to the extent that the statement is ignored or rebutted without sufficient evidence.
>>Since there are millions of Macs, there ought to be at least ONE or maybe even two malware programs out there for Macs in the wilds of the Internet. However AFAIK there are still ZERO such programs out there.>>
What kind of person actually bothers to write malware? The kind of person that would much rather write malware for a system that is both much easier to exploit and in much wider use. That doesn't mean you should run any machine without basic protection.
Also, there are definitely more than zero such programs out there (feel free to consult archives or Dr. Google). They are not nearly as widespread as ones for Windows, for the reasons pointed out above, but they exist.
>>Also ALL ordinary Mac programs run without the user having to be an administrator. There are MANY programs in Windows (especially games) that will NOT work properly in a restricted user account.>>
That is an old saw!
It's also completely correct. This is a big chunk of what I was referring to when I said that OS X was innately more secure than NT, and it is (imho) a MAJOR flaw in NT, and why I'd never consider it as even approaching secure (it practically requires the regular users to be administrators at all times).
An interesting fact: I never once objected to the concept that OS X was superior from a security standpoint, and yet you felt obligated to raise that reason. Are you wondering about any possible bias you may possess at this point?
>>Since there are millions of Macs, there ought to be at least ONE or maybe even two malware programs out there for Macs in the wilds of the Internet. However AFAIK there are still ZERO such programs out there.>>
What kind of person actually bothers to write malware? The kind of person that would much rather write malware for a system that is both much easier to exploit and in much wider use. That doesn't mean you should run any machine without basic protection.
Also, there are definitely more than zero such programs out there (feel free to consult archives or Dr. Google). They are not nearly as widespread as ones for Windows, for the reasons pointed out above, but they exist.
>>Also ALL ordinary Mac programs run without the user having to be an administrator. There are MANY programs in Windows (especially games) that will NOT work properly in a restricted user account.>>
That is an old saw!
It's also completely correct. This is a big chunk of what I was referring to when I said that OS X was innately more secure than NT, and it is (imho) a MAJOR flaw in NT, and why I'd never consider it as even approaching secure (it practically requires the regular users to be administrators at all times).
An interesting fact: I never once objected to the concept that OS X was superior from a security standpoint, and yet you felt obligated to raise that reason. Are you wondering about any possible bias you may possess at this point?
