__/ [ Mark Kent ] on Sunday 25 February 2007 07:07 \__
> Jerry McBride <mcbrides9@xxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>
>>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>>> __/ [ Mark Kent ] on Saturday 24 February 2007 07:47 \__
>>>>
>>>>> larry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <larry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>>>>> You write the article like it's Apple's fault.
>>>>>
>>>>> It was very clear who had written what, there was no implication that
>>>>> this was Apple's fault.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Though I agree this is
>>>>>> a VERY bad move on any maker to affect anything other than the
>>>>>> operation of thier softure, it was nost a case of Apple doing it. And
>>>>>> such things already happen regularly on other platofrms (heck I recall
>>>>>> cases where there was such logic bombs in Commodore 64 programs).
>>>>>
>>>>> No, but it does affect you if you have a Mac. I'm now going to have to
>>>>> inform parents-in-law and my No1 son that their computers are
>>>>> vulnerable to an attack from proprietary software, which they should
>>>>> avoid if they can.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Someday sone not too bright software maker will produce something
>>>>>> similar running on Linux that does the same thing, no real news here,
>>>>>> Mac, Linux or otherwise.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There is very real news here, this exists *now* for Apple Mac
>>>>> computers,
>>>>> and should be avoided. OSX has done well for avoiding exploits and
>>>>> vulnerabilities so far, but not, apparently, any more. Now the
>>>>> software vendors /themselves/ are creating malware.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would say that this is a very strong argument indeed for using Linux,
>>>>> and in particular, sticking with a well-known, safe distribution, such
>>>>> as Debian or Ubuntu, say, or perhaps Red Hat, where there is *no such
>>>>> risk*.
>>>>
>>>> When I read the Inquirer's title, I thought it was Apple. Then, as I
>>>> read the item I realised that it wasn't. I then added the word
>>>> "software" to the subject line, just before posting it. I think it
>>>> wasn't enough to remove ambiguity though, but this wasn't deliberate.
>>>>
>>>> Then, as I saw some potential for ambiguity I added the remark about
>>>> Open Source. Also had Skype's spyware in mind... it's still fresh in my
>>>> mind...
>>>>
>>>
>>> I agree that at first blush it could look that way, but 2 or 3 seconds
>>> of reading later and the position is clear. The *key* point, however,
>>> is that this only affects Apple computers. Let me give an example, when
>>> we talk about a Windows virus, does anything think that the Windows
>>> development team wrote it? I doubt it. They know that there are
>>> thousands of kiddies out there churning out exploits on a constant basis
>>> - far more than Microsoft have employees, I'm sure.
>>>
>>
>> One thing I have noticed, not in any related story either... where's
>> APPLE's official outrage over this? APPLE corporate should be denouncing
>> this and slamming it for the MALLWARE that it truly is... However, silence
>> in this case means that approves the inclusion of MALLWARE in third party
>> applications... they must not care much about home folders being deleted
>> in the name of anti-piracy...
>
> A very interesting point. Steve Jobs should be shouting to the rooftops
> that Apple does not support Malware of any kind, but as you say, he's
> not.
>
>>
>> Thank god I never bought into APPLE madness... just like WINDOWS
>> madness...
>
> Except Apple don't have a monopoly, of course.
What about portable players? There's a bit of format abuse over there, as
well. Third parties are being locked out. The name says it all: Apple Ipod
(upper/lowecase variation intended).
--
~~ Best wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | Code built upon another's is less prone to bugs
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Swap: 1036184k total, 394364k used, 641820k free, 96320k cached
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms
|
|
