It’s a great time to be a geek… not a zealot.
October 29th, 2006
MightyQ suggests that Microsoft is building a security poor product in order to profit from it. Considering most spyware and viruses are obtained through user ignorance and not from security holes, it is hard to follow this argument. However, it is good OSX vs Microsoft candy so I’ll bite.
From a pure foundation standpoint, Microsoft built a platform where people could both easily design and install software. Up until the web 2.0 generation of new software, most innovation was brought to the public by the Microsoft platform.
Take the browser, for instance. Remember the old days when trying to get plug-ins to run under Netscape was just about impossible? IE helped to make it very simple. Most games and programs are rolled out on windows first. Freeware Microsoft software must outnumber freeware mac software 10:1.
If the windows platform is so evil in all ways, then why are so many people excited about finally running XP on an apple platform?
By being easy for users and programmers, the Microsoft platform has driven us into the current computer age. Have evil people also learned to take advantage of this platform? Certainly. However, if Apple’s model of PC had been the predominate platform for the last 15 years, innovation would not have advanced as quickly as it has.
Please remember, it is only with OSX that Apple has engaged a more open platform to handle some of these weaknesses. BootCamp has been another way to catch-up.
The Apple system is the Honda Accord–reliable and safe. Microsoft has been an American muscle car–easier to tweak, easier to hack, easier to mod, easier to develop, cheaper to buy, and more likely to break.
It’s sad that people believe that one is always better than the other. It’s just not that way in cars, religion, politics… or computers.
Although people start leaning into the land of zealotry claiming that one OS is better than another on this or that, Apple and Microsoft have different philosophies. The fast, loud, development-friendly Microsoft have propelled users into new technologies at an amazing rate. The more conservative Apple has been cautious and closed but better polished with better security.
Even the most die hard user Apple user must be jealous of an occasional XP-only game or two. Certainly, I am anxious to get a MacBook to put through its paces. They are ubersexy.
The more interesting thing to me now, however, is the merging of these two worlds. OSX running on Intels, XP running on Apples, Vista with user access protection — these two different worlds are coming together.
As a geek, I can honestly embrace the beauty and goodness on both sides of the equation. Plus, I do not run the risk of hypocrisy when that must-have killer app or product is developed on the “other platform.”
It’s a great time to be a geek… not a zealot.
October 29th, 2006 at 12:08 pm
So, one point I was trying to make is that
security(OS X) > security(XP)
Do you deny this? I suspect that a lot of people who don’t understand the differences between the two OSes can’t appreciate why one platform is more secure than another.
October 29th, 2006 at 3:52 pm
i would agree w/qmchenry on the security factor. OS X > XP
I personally prefer Windows over OS X just because I build my own systems and am a major upgrade junkie. XP can be really fun if you know what your doing. OS X’s simplicity and stability make me bored at times. But I’m the type that re-installs his OS every month.
But again, OS X is a super stable OS vs XP.
I’m a fan of both OS’s for these reasons. Like Davak said, its a great time indeed!
October 29th, 2006 at 8:24 pm
I agree with both of you guys.
Seamonk is the classic, backyard-mechanic, tinker geek. XP systems are certainly more tweakable and hackable that OSX.
I believe in its foundation OSX is more secure due to its unix/freebsd roots. Multiple reports over the last two years, however, have shown that OSX is not imperivious to attack.
I don’t thin that anybody can argue that OSX is a less attractive target for malicious hackers and spyware authors. Certainly as firefox has gained in popularity more exploits have been discovered.
November 1st, 2006 at 10:17 pm
I think you twisted my words a bit, Davak.. I don’t think MS is intentionally building insecure software to profit by it. I just don’t think they can help it anymore… the core of Windows is just not solid from a security perspective unless they rewrite it from the ground up (making it backwardly incompatible). Instead, I think they just realized that they could profit from their deficiencies. Ballsy, but brilliant, really.
When I give talks on security, I often refer to the ‘bilities of compromise’ — as security goes up, the ‘bilities’ go down.. usability, capability, reliability, likeability.. okay, I made the last one up. But when security goes up on a box, it becomes less fun to use (16 digit passwords that must be changed hourly = no fun), things that are insecure go away, so it is capable of less, things that used to work don’t, so you can’t rely on it.. yuck.
To some extent, there are things on all platforms that are security risks. Phishing schemes are platform agnostic. But malware isn’t. For example, something installing itself on a Windows box can get something into the registry that’ll make it startup when the system is rebooted. On a (properly configured) UNIX box (with a user not logged in as root), if software installed itself, it would be in files owned by the user, not root, and since there is no publicly writable registry-like monstrosity (one of my very least favorite things about Windows, at least in the top 500), the app will not be able to survive a reboot.
Windows was designed so that users like parents could get it to work, although who of us with parents using Windows haven’t hated supporting that box at least once?
Here is the very best part of being a Mac user:
When someone comes up to me and whines about how they can’t get all the spyware, malware, viruses, worms, parasites, adware, etc., off their Windows box, I can now say, “aww, that sounds rough.. I’m a Mac guy, though. I don’t use PCs, so I can’t really help you.” (hopefully they aren’t reading this…)