Secure Unix Kernel vs Poorly programmed and supported Windows - Twitch1

My compures has infected fudge yeaaaaa

(i just trolling)

Jus out of interest...... Not as if I have it....... Buts lets say I'd you DID, what would you do?

Good thing I have dual boot OS now Linux and Windows FTW!

So this will not affect any Mac computers? Or Mac laptops?

Apparently, if you've bought a Mac desktop or laptop, the criminals behind this already feel sorry at the amount of money you wasted and don't feel morally justified in targetting you.

That was me until the release of Windows 7. I don't think it was undeserved either. Having used Linux extensively side-by-side with Windows, there was just no comparison. While Windows had more applications and games for it, which is, as you pointed out, because

that was really the only advantage I could see for Windows. It ran slower, basically forced the user to constantly run as an administrator to do anything useful, crashed the whole computer often and required reboots often. With Windows 7, it's gotten a lot better, but I will still insist that Linux-based OSes are much better, and the only thing they lack is more software. (Chicken and the egg problem: Needs more software to be popular, needs to be more popular to have software created for it)

Not quite as bad, I would think. Like I mentioned earlier, the fact that Windows required (or expected) you to run constantly as an administrator has to take a lot of the blame for its vulnerability up until today. The Unix-based systems (which today is every OS but Windows) were created from the ground up specifically NOT to require this. The new UAC in Windows helps, but the problem still remains that a lot of "normal use" requires people to accept these UAC requests, and like EULAs, people eventually get tired of them and just click "Yes" without bothering to read what they're accepting, and the program suddenly has full administrative force.

Wasted? I had a windows laptop until I got a MacBook air.the MacBook air is far better in every way and we do not have to deal with stupid little problems windows have to deal with

You say stupid little problems, but here's the rub of it; if you know what you're doing, then having a Windows OS is no problems at all.

I use Win 7, I use only Microsoft Security Essentials and Windows Firewall. Both of these programs do just as good a job as many of the very popular third-party programs and are just as customisable. I am careful with what I click, and generally enjoy a hassle free online life. I've never had any problems with my system and I tend to keep a good house.

These programs plus a nuance of common sense are all you need, and it applies equally to Win, Linux, or any other OS.

The problem is actually caused more by the success of Windows and the lack of education and support provided for people using it.

Win 7 is on pretty much every single PC you can buy from a shop, which is how the vast majority of home users get their PC. They will then turn it on, eventually get it online, and crack on as if that's all they need to do. So the lack of education amongst a large number of these users is what leads to the successful prevalence of malicious software.

Most of the more 'popular' infections out there could be solved by running Windows Update, but a lot of people don't update, or have it disabled altogether.

Who's to blame when your house burns down? The Fireman that pays a visit to your home and installs a smoke alarm and tells you to buy batteries, or you that doesn't bother buy the batteries and then wonders why it doesn't work?

As for Macs, there is simply no argument against the fact that they are over-priced. None at all.
The top end Macbook Pro at over £2,000 has less CPU power, less RAM and less HD space than my Win 7 laptop from Dell which should've cost me £1,400 (before a heavy discount was applied).

You're paying for a brand name.

Then tie in the fact that most of the programs I use wont work on a Mac OS nor most of the games I play, and it's clear where the winner is.

Interestingly enough, a lot of malicious software would just bypass the UAC anyway, making it pretty useless.

couldn't be bothered to read it all -.- but win 7 are good but so are macs

I told you guys to go to your local park and defend your OS of choice.

The argument that OS X and Linux are not "mainstream" and therefore exploits are not developed is a B.S. defense statement based on opinion.

"It is possible to hack into a Mac. If you have physical access to the Mac then it is possible to hack into it. If you can persuade someone to download a script that will give you access to the Mac then it is possible to hack into the Mac remotely - this was the case at the recent pwn2own contest." - The pwn2own contest winner exploited Safari and it was quickly patched.

A security flaw included in OS X not corrected by standard users:
"It is getting even easier as more people get MACs. The default for Mac computers is "accept all incoming." A program can now get into a MAC computer and take it over without the user realizing it. Anyone with a MAC should go into System Preferences and into security. You should change from the default to block all incoming. That way only programs that you send out, such as Safari can receive replies. No one can hack into your computer."

Very small collection of successful hacking of an OS X flavor.

I would love to show you proof of the Swiss cheese track record of Windows, but almost everyone is well informed of such information.

In the end, it requires some knowledge on the users end but it also falls on the developers for being lazy and pushing out code too quickly.

Vista was a comical imitation of OS X Leopard / Snow Leopard. Microsoft did a great job screwing up that attempt at ambiguous lack of creativity that is rampant in their community. Originality is not a Microsoft keyword....

Well that's just ignorant. Don't expect me to participate in any discussions with you in the future.

(You might consider that a bonus)

i read it and had no clue what it meant with all the linux os and all that (I'm no good with computers or technology and i couldn't be bothered to read it before because i was looking at my phone on a little phone screen

Yeah, macs run on a UNIX based operating system too.

Twitch -
If you (or anyone else) has a windows phone, they should check that too.

You boys get just a tab bit worked up about your operating systems.

Just gonna throw my, fairly uneducated, opinion out there. Might be worth the two cents. Might not be.

I've always used Windows - because windows has been what was given to me with the computers I've had. I have never used Linux. I sat down once at an apple computer and felt like a complete idiot. It took me 20 minutes to turn it on, I never did figure out how to properly use the mouse, and was banging my head on the desk by the time I gained access to the internet. None of this was the Mac's fault, mind you. I was just very unfamiliar that they made computers so very different from what I had used my whole life.

The whole OS debate strikes me as silly. Not because there are not differences among them to be debated, but because of the heated intensity that people take up for one or the other.

It is my (remember - rather small and uneducated) understanding that each operating system have some very good strengths. Each system also has flaws. Isn't this the case with most things in life? I can only truly speak on behalf of windows.

What I see as a windows strength...

Very user friendly - I know there are some who might look down on this. Like the gaming community looks down on the casual gamer. If it were not for this user friendliness I have older loved ones who would not use computers. My lovely step-mum will click on anything. I agree that because it is the system that goes out to the largest amount of people that there are inherent problems cause by user error. My step-mum's computer needs to be cleaned out very often but I that is something the family is willing to put up with because she gets joy from playing games like Slingo and bejewled - and because it makes it a lot easier for us to keep in touch with her since I live a bit of a distance from my parents.

Windows also has faults - weather they are problems with security I don't know. I honestly feel that security problems are almost always user caused because there are so many ways to prevent it. I would assume this is the case with all operating systems.

I cant speak on the others but my guess is they also have strong and weak points.

Mostly I'm just here to play devils advocate and hopefully show the inherent weakness in any argument that favors one side so strongly. Any good debate or English comp teacher will tell you that you have to acknowledge the opposing side's strength in order to truly build a strong case of descent.

Just a quick side note on the only thing said thus far that I truly have to disagree with. I'm not sure you can ever fault Microsoft with being unoriginal. Perhaps they have gone through periods of being unoriginal- but there have been great and original things that have come from the company.

Nobody's making you participate in the discussion. I generally recommend not attempting to make arguments or statements about things you know little or nothing about. Doing so can only reveal your ignorance and at worse it can really make you look bad.

Say what?

Well, that's true of anything you have physical access to. Short of encrypting your entire computer and always turning it off if you're not physically in front of it, all computers are vulnerable to that. I don't think that "vulnerability" is quite what's being discussed here, though...

Right... and if you're able to convince some poor shmuck that you're the prince of Nigeria and that you should send him $50,000 so he can send you $2 billion, then you'll make money. As with physical access, social engineering is itself not a vulnerability of the system itself. How many people over the years have been fooled into running commands like "rd /S /Q C:\Windows" or "sudo rm -rf /*"? It only proves that some people aren't very tech savvy.

I beg to differ. Please read section #5 of this document to understand why. (tl;dr: It's not "user friendly," it's "inexperienced friendly.")

Yea, these were quotes from the pwn2own contest that was criticizing the MacBook Air.
I was merely pointing out that these are not system flaws but only social engineering and broad brush strokes trying to paint Macs as insecure...

This is why I gave up looking for any facts of the previous failure of hacking a Mac directly. The only other report was a Java exploit that also exploited Safari and Firefox....
Not once have I heard of proper OS X exploits...

I do agree with you, this is not the "user friendly" approach as was claimed incorrectly by melodytune....

If you introduce a person to a Mac before you introduce them to a Windows machine, they will be just as easily confused trying to make the switch.
Familiarity does not equal "user friendly" and actually the iOS is User Friendly... 2 year old children can pick it up and operate it without any intervention from an adult.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/user-friendly

You are quibbling over language. The fact is - the majority of "users" are still not very IT literate. The term "user" is not meant to describe everyone, it describes the majority. That is like arguing that we should change the definition of Parkway because you don't park on them you drive. At some point someone gave a term a definition and people accepted it. You can attempt all you want to give that word a new meaning but most people are still going to look at you funny when you use it incorrectly.

I think you missed my point.

All operating systems have good points. All operating systems have flaws.

I always quibble over language if I find it necessary. If we just leave language to be abused and misused, things lose all distinction and meaning. I don't care what people think of me when I use words in their "right" or "intended" way. The word user-friendly is a misnomer, because its perceived connotations are something else than its literal meaning, and I don't care for such dissonance.

If what you said was true, then language would never change, but the meaning behind lots of words—like the word "gay", which had one meaning since the 14th century, and radically started changing its meaning around the 1940s—has changed substantially over time.

No, I got your point. I agreed with it too. I just happened to argue against something besides your point. I tend not to argue with things I agree with.

Mac's are no more secure then PC's, The only reason why they don't get AS MANY infections is because such a small amount of people use it, It's just not worth it. If you were selling cookies on a market stall, Would you set up were only 3% would pass by or were 90% of people would pass by?

Nope. Popular "slang" changes over time. If you look up the word "gay" it will have the definition meaning homosexual. However, it will also still have a definition meaning - happy
(this is the original English translation of the word. If you want to discuss words changing as they cross over language barriers that is a different subject entirely.). An apple will always mean apple. A tree will always mean tree. A weed will always be something you pull out of your flower bed, although can also be used as a slang to mean an illegal (in most states) drug. While the new definition is out there - It doesn't change the fact that you still pull weeds out of your garden.