Because Apple posted an advisory [a while back now] suggesting that an antivirus program be used, the Windows bigots have erected a strawman: Apple says it is immune from viruses, so now it looks like Macs aren't so great huh?
Of course, that's not what is happening at all. I have used a virus checker for years, largely so I don't pass on Windows viruses. Not Linux viruses. Not Unix viruses. Not Mac viruses. Windows.
It's not that there can't be Mac, *nix and other non-Windows viruses. It's that they are harder to do than a Windows virus. Almost in all cases there aren't the security holes, so you have to trick the user. Sure, you can do that - users can be lusers on any platform. But since *nix-based OSs are as secure as feasible from the getgo, the number of viruses or worms, etc. that we find on these OSs is almost nil. Apple are being cautious, of course - this is prophylactic practice for the inevitable viruses that one day will attack Macs and other non-Windows platforms. But it's not an admission of equality. Face it, Windows is a kludge, and has been since its inception. So, too, was the original Mac OS, which is why the shift back these many years to a Unix-base was such a great idea. And why this attack is pure strawmannery.
OS wars are religious wars. You either are baptised into an OS or you convert to it, which is why these arguments are vacuous. It is clear there is only one absolute about OSs. Don't use a proprietary system that is unsafe, complex, has too high an overhead, and means that you won't be able to access your legacy data in ten years. In short, don't use Windows.
- Log in to post comments
I started off with Atari GEM, went on to DOS, which was a step back, proceeded to UNIX and Linux, fell into Windows 2 and OS/2 and have bounced between Windows and Linux for many years (although I did port a program called PFG from SGI UNIX to Mac). I'm not religiously wedded to either one.
I do find that problems in Windows are far easier to analyze than in Linux, a function that I suspect is a product of fewer restrictions, which of course can be pronounced as 'easier to hack'.
Contrary to your last comment, I have no trouble accessing data from 20 years ago. Windows reads FAT16 and FAT32 as easily as it does NTFS. M$ is fairly consistent in preserving backwards compatibility.
I would extend that argument to other Microsoft software as well. I have data originally stored in dBase II that I can still access, and data stored much alter in Access 1.0 that I can't access.
*nix (including Mac) is more secure because things, including things that could be viruses, all start out in locked rooms and the system and/or user carefully lets them out to play under certain conditions. In Windows, things .. including things that could be viruses ... are wearing name tags that are occasionally checked at the door by easily bribed, sleepy, incompetent guards.
I actually meant the other Microsoft file formats - I have seen files in Word, Powerpoint and as you say, Access, that cannot be opened five years after they were created on the latest versions. Microsoft are very bad at backwards compatibility for their file formats, Gary. Disk formats are not so hard.
I have both Mac and Windows, and I have encountered viruses that my program stopped, but as stated, they are all Windows. I laugh as I send them away...
One thing to consider is that the larger user base for Windows means that there is a larger group that can access the security leaks and a larger chance of spreading any virus. While the *nix OSs may be more secure, if they took over a major chunk of the market, you can bet that there will be more viruses that are produced for them. Survival of the fittest and all that.
Which is the principle attack vector for most virii anyway... Nobody attacks Mac because, well, who cares about some designer's Photoshop work? And *nixes tend to be used by people who understand computers, who are generally harder targets for social engineering attacks. You want people's credit card details, or a giant bot army, you need to target Windows. The larger installed base makes propagation much more efficient.
Oh, and which OS was it that got hit by the Great Worm back in 1988?
;)
What you mention about *nix and Mac and other non-windows OSes being more difficult to create virus for is true enough, I'm sure; however there seems to me at least to be a much simpler explanation for why they don't get virus. Despite its downfalls, Windows is still the most widely used OS, by a fairly large margin, so even using an assumption that Windows, Mac, *nix, etc OSes are all equally open to attack (which they aren't), it would make little sense for hackers to bother making malicious code to attack non-windows OSes when they could target many times more users without the other OSes.
I don't know the exact percentages for Windows vs non-Windows OSes in use worldwide though, so if I am totally wrong on that count (or any other for that matter) please let me know
I haven't seen a Word document, an Excel spreadsheet, a Powerpoint presentation, or a Publisher document that can't be accessed or edited by my Office 2007 software. And I work in a mixed environment with data files as old as the mid 90s. And I have OpenOffice 1.0 files that OO.o 3 can't open right (layout's wrong, missing objects). Stop spreading the FUD.
Oh, and I have Vista Ultimate (with Aero) working in a four year old PC, with no noticeable performance hit. It's even better than the last Ubuntu I used (Edgy Eft). I haven't tried Apple, I'm a third world resident. :)
John, I'm not sure why you've had trouble with M$ file formats, I have yet to find a previous format a newer version cannot read, except for a version of M$ (DOS) backup they had abandoned years ago.
If you have been using the Apple versions of M$ software, I have no experience with that but I wouldn't put it past M$ to exclude older conversion filters.
I can open Office 97 Access files I wrote in '95 and Office XP Access files written in 2002 with Office 2007. They are converted so the older apps can no longer read them but that is expected.
If you have a specific example I could look into I'm sure I have several different file format files on the hundreds of useless floppy disks I have. (I still have 5-1/4" disks and drives somewhere)
Greg, you are on the money from what I can see, Linux is a more secure environment, although as it gains in popularity more crap will be written specifically for it (it has holes too).
What I really like about Linux is the inclusiveness - no matter what old file you have, somewhere somebody has written a reader for it. Oh, and the fact you can compile your own kernel. And get capable apps for free. And choose your GUI.
If you really want to talk about conflicting religions, how about the Camaro vs Mustang controversy?
Linux is much nicer than Windows, but for less used OSs compatibility becomes a problem. Try waiting for 30 minutes for a talk to start while people scramble for a Mac-compatible projector cable, then find that the Mac can't communicate with the projector...
Well I ran a department of graphics for a medical research institute for ten years, and I have used Macs in lectures for as long. The only time there's any problem is when a Windows user thinks that Macs ought to behave exactly the same way that Windows machines do. But if the user has their cable with them (and I always carry two in case one gets mislaid) there is no problem.
And I have a number of Powerpoint files of a lecture series a friend gave me that no longer will be opened by any current version of Powerpoint, nor will OpenOffice, nor even Keynote, which usually opens files Powerpoint won't. And there are Word files that we archived where I worked that failed to open under any current version of Word, although we found that WordPefect would sometime open them.