44 new OS security fixes in massive patch!

[Kuciwalker]

The logic is amazingly simple, repeatedly shown by example (today is perfect as an example), and it's one that you and Urban Ranger refuse to fathom -- Urban Ranger because he's a brainwashed Stallman zealot and you because you're under Jobs' reality distortion field. There's not much to say aside from you look like a fool when you deny the obvious.

Damn, Asher, you're good

[Asher]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Facts from Microsoft's "Get the Facts" Campaign.

I have never once cited that.

I'll note that you've never once constructed an argument that was not shot down in one post, never to see you reply again, or a complete strawman. You seem to alternate, just to keep me on my toes...

[Agathon]

The argument is that popular operating systems get targeted for viruses and worms more. It's a common sense argument constantly backed up by facts.

It most certainly is not. Rational people understand that there is no one reason why a particular OS is a target. It's just the old law of mixed motives.

I'm somewhat mystified as to why there are no OS X viruses (there are trojans, but they require physical access to the machine). It seems reasonable to think that many people out there would love to be the first to get an OS X virus working, but nobody has managed to so far. There are platforms which have a lower presence than OS X, but which have a number of viruses.

Again, the Classic Mac OS did have a number of viruses written to target it, and these were being written when the Mac marketshare was not much different than it is now (in North America anyway, since Apple is largely a N American thing). I fully expected there to be about the same number of OS X viruses as there were Classic viruses, but there are none. Marketshare on its own is simply not a sufficient explanation for the virus free mac. As usual your argumentation lacks all subtlety.

But it doesn't matter. For the time being OS X is a safe computing platform and that is what matters. You can whine about why, but it doesn't change the fact that OS X is virus and spyware free as far as I know (and I try to keep up with the news).

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
It most certainly is not. Rational people understand that there is no one reason why a particular OS is a target. It's just the old law of mixed motives.

No, but the obsecurity of the OS is a huge reason.

It's the same reason Ladas are not frequent targets for chop-shop car thefts, while mundane Honda sedans are. There's no incentive to steal a Lada for a chop shop, and there's plenty to steal that Honda.

Your problem is you're too used to the la-la land of Philosophy for you to get a solid grounding in reality, or even true psychology.

Answer me this: Why do people write viruses? Hint: It has something to do with a sense of power and destruction, along with a desire for fame.

If you write a virus that deletes random documents on MacOS X, you're a footnote in a boring section of the paper nobody reads. If you write one for Windows, it's frontpage news -- the ATMs are down, the banks are down, CNN's frickin' down.

You need to research and understand the psyche of the people who write viruses, and then you need to understand the technical nature of viruses and how they work, to make any kind of conclusion on the matter. As it stands, you have neither, which is why your position is about as technically sound as your average New York Construction worker discussing Plato's bowel movements.

[Agathon]

Your problem is you're too used to the la-la land of Philosophy for you to get a solid grounding in reality, or even true psychology.

See you've lost already. You always resort to this when you're out of ammo. You've just repeated the same old tired and unsupported crap you always do. I could make exactly the same argument for why people would want to make a working OS X virus - to be the first person to do it, and put those mac users in your place.

I don't know why there are no OS X viruses. You don't know either, you just think you do.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
What is it up to now , 8-9%? And by invulnerable I meant invulnerable relative to IE, quite clearly

I will be the first to admit I have no idea what I am talking about but I think I am right about this.

You. are. awesome!

[Asher]

The massive security update Apple issued breaks support for 64-bit applications in OS X...

http://news.com.com/Apple+OS+X+security+fix+busts+64-bit+support/2100-1002_3-5837406.html?tag=nefd.top

Don't they do any kind of testing at all? No wonder OS X crashes so much.

"Due to an error on the part of Apple, this update prevents any 64-bit native application from running," Wolfram told its customers in an e-mail alert on Tuesday. In particular, the problem means that Mathematica 5.2, released in July, will not run on a G5 computer with Mac OS X and Apple's latest security update, according to the e-mail.