Apple gets security lecture from Microsoft

Of course Mac OS is going to have security flaws. The difference is that Apple usually searches for these flaws themselves and patches them as necessary. Microsoft however only releases patches when someone else finds a security flaw in Windows and exploits it.

I think thats what he was implementing by suggesting that Apple is going to have to "seek outside expertise in the form of a head of security communications in the next 12 months"

Even with the 2 viruses (regardless of severity) found earlier this year proves (at least to me) that Mac OS X definately will have more security holes exploited in the next few years, just because of its growing popularity, and possibly an answer will be to look into having outside people work on keeping the OS secure. I dont see anything wrong with having someone else finding security flaws..

I mean for all we know, this whole community could be an example of Apple having someone else find security holes (maxx..) and then fixing it. sort of.

I doubt there will be as many Mac viruses as there are for Windoze. At least Apple fixes the security problem as soon as the notice it instead of waiting for somebody else to do something about it like Micro$oft does.

I hate Micro$oft.

... I hate Micro$oft. :glare:

And that's a very valid point, colonels1020. If you spend any time on the newsgroups you'll rapidly come to the conclusion that hackers and malware authors also hate MS, and they have contempt for John and Sally Doe who buy MS-based systems. The hackers have more respect for an operating system based on Unix and for the people who use them. That's only one very small part of the equation, but it's potentially significant.

Apple will have nowhere NEAR the security issues that Micro$haft has BECAUSE of the fact that OS X is built off of Unix. Unix has nowhere near the security flaws of Windows and honestly, most hackers use Linux/Unix and know that causing exploits in the OS they know and love will put them in a vulnerable position as well, so they just don't even bother. Once OS X MURDERS Windows, then we need to worry... because mainstream is against the hacker's philosophy in my humble opinion but what do I know?

Just know this... Apple isn't as dumb as Micro$haft... not in any way... and yes, I said Microshaft. I TOTALLY remember the Micro$haft Internet Exploder {censored} that happened WAY back in the day... nobody likes a monopoly. Apple is not a monopoly. Many things show that.

True that Unix is potentially safer, but don't forget that security can only be as good, as the dumbass who sits behind the computer. If that person just opens and runs everything he/she stumbles upon, even Unix won't be able to save his hiney And I sincerely doubt OS X will ever murder Windows or vice versa There are just to many haters in both camps... There is one thing though, I like better about MS, and that's the fact that they actually mention what their patches do, sort of. I don't know in what length this is true, but I read on zdnet that Apple rarely says why they bring out a patch :-s

I don't know in what length this is true, but I read on zdnet that Apple rarely says why they bring out a patch :-s

Via Software Update, Apple provides a link to the full details of what each security patch fixes for every update they release. What they don't necessarily do is provide a brilliant description for Joe Bloggs of what it all means (that is, they are a little too brief in their simplistic descriptions and the detailed ones are a too complex to help someone who isn't technically-minded).

Word to the wise, though. ZDNet is not a reliable source of information on Apple and Microsoft are a thoroughly unreliable source of information on Apple. Don't forget that there is a political reason for this MS guy's comments - MS has (rightly) been hammered for it's lax attitude to security and regardless of what they say, they will continue to be while they are using a fundamentally flawed base for their OS (which is still going to be the case for Vista). It is a commercial threat to them that there is an OS that is inherently more secure available. In other words, it is in their interest to rubbish the other guy even if what they are saying is a load of bunk. The fella would have known that MS was due a lot of bad press this week due to their failure to deliver on their promises. Bad news for MS wrt to Vista is good news for Apple with OS X. How do you reduce the good news that will had their way this week... you rubbish their product, or their development process.

MS should throw Windows and Vista in the trash and completely start over from scratch using Apple's OS X as their model.

Hahaha - and wipe out support for the millions of win32 applications, i think not. Unfotunately mirosoft's hands are tied to windows - i'm sure their developers would love nothing more than to start again with a clean slate but it's just not economically viable. Remember the softare developers axiom, patching a bad solution is always more profitable than writing a good solution from scratch.

It's more like Microsoft is tied to DOS than Windows. True, a hybrid kernel has not been released ever since 2000, but the NT kernel is still based off of DOS in some respects simply so that Windows will always be backwards-compatible.

Of course, the smarter solution when building Windows XP (or the initial NT kernel for that matter) would have been to mirror Apple's decision and build a new OS from scratch while throwing in a copy of the old one to run in a "Classic" environment.

It's more like Microsoft is tied to DOS than Windows.

I'm sorry, but just no.

DOS is pretty much completely out the the equation. The command-line isn't, but that really is only for IT Pros. DOS in it's wholeness is dead. I purchased Worms Something a little while back, and I had to use Windows ME to play it because XP, with all it's compatibility, couldn't.

Microsoft is not tied to DOS, it is tied to Windows. The Windows core and the DOS core are not the same thing, and you can't say DOS is to Windows as Unix is to Mac OS X. Why? Because Windows XP simply isn't based on DOS. Windows 3.1 was, so was 95. But already 98 didn't feel like it, and 2000 wasn't.

Its like Devil preaching Bible