But if "OS X Tiger" was to gain 100 % market share, I honestly believe that my Mac would not be affected by any "viruses" or "hacking", whatsoever.
Of course, there may be some flaws discovered if such an event were to occur, but I am a very careful being. And with "Safari"'s "Private Browsing" and helpful settings in "System Preferences", my Mac would be completely secure! :) By the way, Apple makes sure to release security updates in relatively quick amounts of time! ;) With that in mind, and a stronger "Leopard" coming soon, what can possibly occur in a negative connotation? -The One On 9/19/07, The One <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What I meant to say was that "Leopard"'s release will solve every > current problem prevailant in "OS X Tiger" and people's opinions about > the Macintosh platform, although their current, so-called "opinions" > have no evidence behind them, whatsoever. > > Security is one of the concerns "Leopard" will solve. > > I was, in a way, issuing a final statement about the stance of > operating systems and general computers, at least "OS X" and > "Windows"-wise. > > "OpenBSD" and "Linux both have functions that make them unique. The > simple fact is that the "Windows" OS has nothing unique about it > whatsoever ... except for the fact that it is the only flawed OS to > gain massive poularity ... temporarily.... > > -The One > > On 9/18/07, Nick Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Why are you still talking? > > Why are you topposting? > > Why does it matter to the world at all what your one random friend does? > > And the standard: What does this have to do with OpenBSD? > > > > On 9/17/07, The One <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Apple will, undoubtedly, implement some of these basic techniques for > > > "Leopard". > > > > > > But market share has completely NOTHING to do with "OS X"'s security. > > > > > > Apple always has and will be 100 % when it comes to their software for > > > OS X and OS X itself. > > > > > > Only time will tell. "Leopard"'s release will solve every Mac user's > > > concerns and PC fanboys idiocy! > > > > > > Even my friend, who uses a PC, is considering the purchase of a Mac. I > > > told him to wait until October, which is very near, to buy one. That > > > way he will not have to pay extra for "Leopard"! ;) > > > > > > On 9/5/07, Nick Shank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > The One wrote: > > > > > But how would it spread? There have been 2 OS X viruses, yet they > > > > > spread terribly. > > > > > > > > > > And Apple has already fixed the issue. :) > > > > > > > > > > -The One > > > > > > > > > > On 9/2/07, Kennith Mann III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> On 9/1/07, The One <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >>> On 3/23/07 2:53 AM, Theo de Raadt wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>>>> Symantec have been trying to demonise OS X for a long while. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>> And it is going to work soon. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Because OS X has no Propolice-like compiler stack protection, nor > > > > >>>> anything like W^X which makes parts of the address space > > > > >>>> non-executable, nor anything like address space randomization which > > > > >>>> makes certain attacks very difficult, especially with the previous > > > > >>>> two > > > > >>>> techniques. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> So when they have a bug, it is exploitable just like bugs are on > > > > >>>> any > > > > >>>> other powerpc or i386 machine running some other operating system. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> These days even operating systems like Vista have the above 3 > > > > >>>> security > > > > >>>> technologies. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>> First of all, "bugs" and "viruses" are two different things. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Second, OS X does not need third-party "protection". All of the > > > > >>> protection is built into the OS! > > > > >>> > > > > >>> If Vista is so secure, then why does one need to download > > > > >>> "virus/spyware protection" when it can simply be built into the OS? > > > > >>> > > > > >>> -The One > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >> I don't have "virus/spyware protection" and I've been fine before > > > > >> with > > > > >> Vista and XP. > > > > >> > > > > >> Perhaps you mean to say "why do users who install things they > > > > >> shouldn't need virus/spyware protection?" which I would argue that > > > > >> the > > > > >> OS doesn't matter. I could write a script that asks for rootly > > > > >> permission in OS X and start nuking stuff with the promise of > > > > >> prettier > > > > >> icons for their desktop or IM client. > > > > >> > > > > >> If you were to argue for worms and things of the like, then I would > > > > >> agree. The only virus I will probably ever catch is some zero-day > > > > >> that > > > > >> hits the world and gets in my work network (won't happen at my house > > > > >> -- I live alone....) > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here we hit the heart of the issue. The virus and spyware detection > > > > software for Windows isn't really to protect to the OS. It's to protect > > > > the user from themselves.
