I generally prefer to avoid these debates but decided to respond a bit anyway. Flesh is strong, but the will is weak...
falltime said:
Sure you could theorize or speculate how OS X would do given the EXACT same circumstances and scale Windows deals with. But how could you possibly come to any sort of fair conclusion? Seeing as you already have it in your head that Windows is trash and Microsoft is the corporate incarnation the devil.
I warrant this is a common problem with Mac/Linux proponents. It is also a problem with Windows proponents as well. The stigma of being a Mac user is at times extreme in certain communities. I do not think that Technologist, nor anyone else on these boards, was trying to theorize how OS X would do in Window's circumstance. They have inherently different philosophies.
falltime said:
Take away OS X's proprietary platform - throw it millions of different drivers coded by different developers at different times for millions of different devices, and force half the world’s population to use it.
Why? This has never been Apple's intention, nor their modus operandi. You say take away the proprietary platform and throw millions of drivers at it. I say take away the satndards and control over hardware and do not impose restrictions and quality control upon the hardware drivers.
This is not to say it is the fault of Windows, but when you do not impose controls you do introduce new locations where problems can occur.
falltime said:
Microsoft has to take a different approach to when building it's OS than developers for other OS's do. It has to accommodate and compensate for an incomprehensible slough of variables - people can sit there and scrutinize and criticize that approach all that want... it's different because it has to be, Microsoft didn't just make some stupid, arbitrary decision to implement something called the "registry" because it sounded cool. Yes believe it or not, there was logical reasoning behind it, and it simply makes sense if you take a step back and look at things from Microsoft's perspective. It's completely illogical, and bordering on insane to take OS X's approach as a counterpoint.
Now here I will take a bit of an exception. The registry is a dangerous hack and one that has outlived its usefuleness. It does not, nor did it ever have to, exist. It was simply the direction Windows chose to take. As I state with most things, it has its strong and weak points. It makes sense in a largely static computing environment. It fails to handle large, arbitrary, or frequent changes well though. Further the interdependency of elements makes "simple" adjustments beyond the reach of "typical" users. On paper it sounds great and in reality it has its uses. But also in reality it has its problems. As someone who had to reinstall the OS of a server last week because a hive became corrupt let me assure you the registry has its issues. The owner of that server should have been backing up the registry and OS for that matter. It does not change the fact that the registry became corrupt on an update and then failed to start on reboot.
falltime said:
And its clear to me you didn't read the article in full because I can't see how you didn't get the point. The article wasn't emphasizing the exploits that had already been patched, or were to be patched; it was simply addressing the fact that OS X COULD be exploited. The most important point the "30 minute" hacker made after he rooted was the SAME point I've been making since day one - "Mac OS X is easy pickings for bug finders. That said, it doesn't have the market share to really interest most serious bug finders".
Sigh, the 30 minute hacker had a local account. How long do you think it would take someone to hack Windows with RDC and the ability to share drives? It was one of the most silly contests I have seen in a while. OS X, Windows, Linux, even BSD. Give someone a local account and they are already more than half way to owning the system. (Give them physical access and they do own the system, but that is another story.)
And while I agree that OS X is not the inpenetrable bastion that some hold it to be, that article is pretty much sensationalist crap. It raises some valid points but they are buried in half understood ramblings. Yes there are ways in which an account or system can be compromised in OS X over the internet. Just because you are not on Windows does not mean you do not have to show some reasonable caution. This is true of any OS. OS X IS more secure than the current incarnations of Windows. Significantly so. This may not always be the case, but is as of this moment.
Properly secured and maintained both are reasonable platforms. With certain allowances and sufficient time both can be hacked.
falltime said:
The truth is OS X isn't a "complete" alternative to Windows... and it definitely isn't a better one. Apple's strength isn't in its software... as someone who supports the software 5 days a week, 8 hours a day... I can ASSURE you that. As I've said many times before - as paradoxal as it may sound, Apple actually finds it's continuing success in the computer industry through its market share. As long as Apple sticks to a "semi"-proprietary platform, its market share will remain somewhat limited... as long as Apple has a limited market share, it will stick to its proprietary platform. Because of this OS X will never have to face any of the serious, ingenious threats Microsoft has to deal with on a daily basis.
I am not sure what you mean by complete. They are different Operating Systems. For many uses they both have the same equivalent functionality. There are some things you can not do on OS X that you can on Windows and vice versa. It depends upon use as to how you define completeness. There are many things I can do in linux that I can not do in Wndows.
Most, though not all, current threats on OS X are not based upon the components Apple has written but upon the underlying supports. There are multiple vectors of attack, but the serious ones require local access to the system. Perhaps with a dominant market share OS X would have as many problems as Windows, but I can say with confidence it would not be of the same scale, frequency, nor inability to correct. This has less to do with the number of machines so much as choices made in design. Microsoft made choices based upon features and usefullness to the OS. Some of these choices, such as ActiveX, have proven in retrospect to be not necessarily the best path given the number of exploits they have introduced.
falltime said:
If that’s the reason why people prefer OSX then fine, but don't trash Windows in the process.
It's never fair to argue over speculation so overzealous Mac-heads need to stop pretending OS X is in the same boat as Windows - it clearly isn't. Theoretical debate is pointless and has no end... good old Nick Naylor said it best when he said "That’s the beauty of argument, because if you argue correctly you are never wrong".
As far as I can see no one argued that OS X is in the same boat as Windows. What they have argued is that Windows has flaws that are not exhibited in OS X. This is true. They have also argued that Microsoft has made inherent mistakes in the design of Windows which causes problems for the end user. This is also true.
OS X and Windows are not the same in concept, design, or market. Each has its strong and weak points. For instance if you want arbitrary hardware choices Macs are not your platform. Nor should Mac be your platform if you want to do PC gaming. And so on.... Neither is a clear winner for all users, it depends upon the user and use.
Mac users trashing Windows, Windows users trashing Macs, and Linux users trashing everyone else. It is a time honored tradition. This will not end and if you don't expect at least some of it on a Mac centric board I am a bit surprised. You unfortunately are fighting a battle of opinion in the opposing points native waters.
