Re: Apple Computer sides with Satan

"Brian Tung" <brian@xxxxxxx> wrote in message news:d7t34h$260$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> David Nakamoto wrote:
>> I thought OS X was based on Unix, which is pretty stable, but also is
>> not that secure.
>
> Where on earth did you hear that it's not that secure? Compared to what?

My experience with early Unix was that the computer was not that secure. It
might have changed in the 10 years I've last worked on a Unix system, but that's
what I remembered.



> You speak of Unix as though it were one OS. It isn't; it's many OS's.
> OS X is built on FreeBSD. That's distinct from, say, Linux or all of
> the other different Unices.

But they share some common design principles as well as some programs.
Otherwise what's the point of calling them Unix or Unix-like? Yes, there are
differences, but to paraphrase Dale Berra, "The similarities are different."

----------------------------------------------------------------------

> Granted, FreeBSD isn't a hardened OS, but it's reasonably secure. It
> has an open development community. That doesn't inherently guarantee
> greater security, but it does mean that you've got more eyes looking
> at it that are not as homogeneous as they are at, say, Microsoft.
>
>> I believe the "resistance to security breaches" is due mainly to the
>> fact that most hackers are targeting Windows system because 90% of
>> the computers out there are running them.
>
> That is certainly a factor, but it is hardly *mainly* due to that. I
> think another significant factor is that many attackers out there equate
> Microsoft with The Man. Even if FreeBSD were to gain an equal market
> share with XP (without resorting to what are seen as Microsoft's unfair
> business practices), there would still be fewer attempts to compromise
> FreeBSD systems, because they aren't seen as the bad guys.
>
> XP security is reasonably good, though. A great improvement over Win2k
> and earlier.

As soon as "the Man" endorses OS X in a significant way, we're going to see more
attention paid to it, according to both your reasoning and the way the world
works. But them it just means that whatever security issues are uncovered in OS
X will be handled and solved. After all Microsoft is obviously keeping a lot of
its engineers employed trying to plug all the security holes in their operating
systems. ^_^

--- Dave
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pinprick holes in a colorless sky
Let inspired figures of light pass by
The Mighty Light of ten thousand suns
Challenges infinity, and is soon gone

david.nakamoto@xxxxxxxxxxx


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Apple Computer sides with Satan
    ... Where on earth did you hear that it's not that secure? ... You speak of Unix as though it were one OS. ... Granted, FreeBSD isn't a hardened OS, but it's reasonably secure. ... > I believe the "resistance to security breaches" is due mainly to the ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Question Please Help!
    ... that is an opinion) unix made the right descition. ... thus having less bugs that may lead to security problems. ... > on Earth that runs on MS Windows or on Unix. ... > people, and thus are more secure (by means of, for example, a number ...
    (comp.security.unix)
  • Re: Of mice and men
    ... install something as a root user and be ... > _totally_ oblivious to the fact that now their machine has a security hole. ... Making it impossible for the superuser on a Unix system to create ... Unix isn't perfectly secure. ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: Protecting Source code of a perl script
    ... it will be more secure only if there are crackers. ... > are no bugs or holes that can be found by white-hats. ... > hundred other unix networking and administration tools. ...
    (comp.lang.perl.misc)
  • Re: Free Commodities Are Abused
    ... >>It's just as hard to secure a UNIX box as it is a Windows box, ... ALL software sucks. ... I use Linux for all the reasons you listed above, ...
    (sci.crypt)