Security vulnerabilities ?
I thought Mac's didn't have them ?
Apple released an update to its Leopard operating system yesterday that comes loaded with a host of security and bug fixes as well as added hardware support. The Cupertino-based firm said OS X 10.5.7 patches several security loopholes related to PHP, CoreGraphics, Apache Web server and the company’s browser Safari. Three …
I thought Mac's didn't have them ?
What's this you say? Security flaws? Bugs? People having problems installing patches? Workarounds?
All this in an Apple operating system? But but but but......I thought Apple products "just work"?
Looks like I may as well stick with Windows then. I can get all that crap already.
Macs do have potential security vulnerabilities like every platform. It's just that not many get to be beyond the purely potential. Apple have NEVER said their computers are invulnerable or without flaws, only a few idiotic zealots have propagated that notion. You find idiotic zealots on all platforms.
The fact remains that compared with Windows, for example, Macs are less likely to get into bother. How long this will remain the case will remain to be seen. There have been numerous warnings but few real alarms of any substance.
I have however, taken on board the experience of Windows users, and practice safe browsing, run ClamX AV - mainly to prevent me passing stuff on to Windows colleagues - and run on a non-admin account with Mac OS X. I wish others would do the same and just shut up. It is possible to be a Mac user and only a teensy-weensy tiny bit smug. :•)
that is all! :)
Apple updates normally work on the fix 2, break 1 average.
I have 2 mac's. They both need regular maintenance, require defrag to speed up, crash, require an anti-virus and firewall and most of all - cost the fucking earth to repair!!! The smug wanker looks soon disappear.
When your fully patched Mac is so secure it is pawned in under 2 seconds security obviously was not as good as intended.
Overpriced hardware and very average OS - that is all : )
I hear about installation problems on any large update but I never have any. Is this only because of the third party software or hardware. I will say the same thing about Windows. I have never had any problems on a basic Windows based system.
Loads of problems lying in wait, but unless your coding drivers or writing obscure apps to do clever stuff, like Windows and Linux, most users will never see the obscure bugs.
What I will say is that as they are of little or no interest to average Joe Punter, they are hardly worth bothering with by the script-kiddies and their rent-a-bot friends!
Trolls, shut-up! IT people using Macs know they are not perfect, we just get left alone more often than the WIndows crowd due to our small numbers, OK?
But I doubt it, because niether of them would need defragging: not by you, at least. Defrag happens on the fly, in Mac OS X. If you are claiming to manually invoke a defrag, I ask you what commands are you instigating to do this?
I say 'liar' - not because I particularly love OS X, but because I know what is true, and what is mindless trolling. The truth is that which doesn't go away when you stop believing in it. I just stopped believing you.
I do not believe you. Doubt if you have even touched a Mac at all and perhaps no other computer either other than via a browser . What on earth has a firewall got to do with anything in this context.? Do you know what one is?
Considered writing a similar comment, but decided arguing with an anon troll is about as useful as stapling my nutsack to a powercord and hitting the on switch... even if he speaks the truth, and does own 2 macs that have nothing but issues, how can anybody take the guy seriously when he's defragging a system that auto-defrags itself anyway... stinks of lying troll to me....
Paris... cos I miss her...
I'm afraid the Mac suffers installation problems as well. My 10.5.7 update would not work from the built in updater. I downloaded the standalone update which sent the machine into a spiral of reboots, eventually finishing at the login screen. I will not update my other machines until this one is fully tested.
As stated the updates have a tendency to break something, fingers crossed it is nothing important.
"I say 'liar' - not because I particularly love OS X, but because I know what is true, and what is mindless trolling. The truth is that which doesn't go away when you stop believing in it. I just stopped believing you."
There are defrag tools out there for osx, google them, just no pre built into osx cause the file system defrags most things automatically.
So calling the guy or girl a liar without hearing the whole story makes you.... a idiot.
So why do companies sell defrag tools for the Mac and the system works faster afterwards?
I've owned Macs since you were a gleam in the pool boy's eye, Mr Anonymous Bosch; we have half a dozen OS X machines in the house now. The only problem I've had with an upgrage/update is that one non-supported feature of Time Machine went away on an update. (Obscure thing involving updating to a USB drive over wireless when it was supposed to be direct-via-Firewire only.) When I contacted Apple, they escalated quickly to a SME and he said "That really worked?!"
Now I do know people how customize/configure the heck out of their machines with enough third-party add-ons to choke a horse. Sometimes one of them will run into an issue, but that's not really a shock, is it?
I've never had a problem with updates in 7 years of Macs, but I always see people here or on other sites complaining that they have. As it's the same updates & operating system for everyone it makes me wonder what they've been doing.
If defragging a Mac is so important how come my partners old G4 Mac runs at the same speed after seven years.
As for her new macbook - after two years of daily work as a graphic designer (Flash, InDesign, Photoshop, etc etc) the machine still runs as fast as when it was bought. She never closes programs - just shuts the lid, takes it home, opens the lid again and carries on. For two years!
The only reason I was reading the article was to check out the updates so I can tell her to install them. She *might* then need to do a reboot.
Your talk of defragging is hilarious - it's like Windows users who can't comprehend that an Ubuntu machine gets updates for every single installed program from the same place. They can't believe that either!
Hey, windows users have to put up with all your trolls, not to mention all the Linux trolls, whenever there is an article about anything remotely connected to Microsoft, so, fair do's.
I notice that the number of trolls for an operating system is inversely proportional to the number of actual users. Hence, windows has many users but few trolls. Linux has the most trolls. Just look at the comments for any article covering Windows 7...zillions of the little penguin headed blighters.
It doesn't mean it doesn't have problems.
It means it does what you want it to do. Take a look at the "scrapbook slideshow" in iphoto. This feature is not technically a problem on any platform, but when you see it you get that "Ah, I didn't know it, but that's how I want to do a slideshow" feeling. This is what makes mac users smug. Its the same with the iphone 3G features.
As for security, vulnerabilities != risk. You take on less risk by going with non-Windows desktops, even if you have more vulnerabilities.
Disclaimer: I don't have a mac or iphone. Apple's devices are expensive. The value of your experience may go up or down depending on the integration you like between applications. This is not a server. If you are interested purely in device throughput you will be disappointed.
"like Windows users who can't comprehend that an Ubuntu machine gets updates for every single installed program from the same place"
Windows gets updates from the same place and actually works better than Apple Update ...
btw MS Update Manager does not offer to install crap I don't want like Apple does (I have iTunes and Apple Update Manager offers to install SAFARI every single time there is iTunes Patch, I have to uncheck it every single time).
Here is Apple and Microsoft comparison.... as you can see even Apple tells you that there are situations when you need it (the problem is that you have to pay for it).
"btw MS Update Manager does not offer to install crap I don't want like Apple does"
Yeah, like IE, WMP, WGA.... ect ect ect.... they are all as bad as each other, lets not kid ourselves, you just get used to unclicking options without thinking in both OS's.
@ Geoffrey W
Makes sense - sound theory! :)
IE is part of OS (bad thing, but it is - this should be resolved in WIN7) thus the update, SAFARI is not installed on my PC and I don't want it yet I'm being asked to install it every time
if you did not steal MS OS, then you should not worry about WGA, what does that have to do with anything?
WMP is optional update and at least on my PC was not checked by default when new version was out
"So calling the guy or girl a liar without hearing the whole story makes you.... a idiot"
No it doesn't, it makes me someone who's tired of mindless trolls making comments that obviuously come from their bullshit repositories.
If they were defragging their file system AND using one of the paid-for tools to do it, they'd have winged about the fact that they had to PAY for the tool they were using to defrag. They didn't: therefore it's bullshit, and they are liars. Don't pander to the penut gallery, you tool. You can argue the case on it's technical merits, not making things up just because you want them to be true.
IE may be part of the OS (which is crazy, but reality) - but then you get to install the next buggy version auto-magically when you update unless you uncheck the option, even if you haven't used it for years...
The "WGA shouldn't bother you unless you steal the OS" is bollocks, plain and simples. It catches out legit copies, and is completely pointless, and I refuse to install pointless software. Every few months, despite unchecking it in the auto-updater and clicking yes to "never ask me about this update again" we get another copy cropping up - so I can never have auto-updates switched on.
And from what I can figure out from your complaint, what you are talking about is the windows updater for apple software (quicktime, itunes, safari), not an OS update for OSX. Then you are comparing that, to the Windows Updater, for Windows OS..... so what's your point?
Try downloading Live Messenger... since like 2002 you get a generic "installer" which then downloads a billion different things unless you tell them not to - try it... it's infuriating going through their web pages, selecting what you want, finally getting the installer, then finding it wants to install a toolbar, messenger, pic viewer, and a thousand other things I didn't want. That's more like what you are complaining about... so my point still stands, they all do it, I don't agree wth Apple, MS, Google, Yahoo or anybody installing more than what you want - infact, it infuriates me, but at least I don't act like it's just an apple thing just because I use windows, or vice versa.
Hey! I'm Geoffrey and so is my wife :-)
I think you were replying to "Law". Sounds a bit Judge Dread-y; "I Am (the) Law".
AS for the issue about downloading software only to find a whole raft of other programs in there which you didn't expect or want, well, if what Law says about Live Messenger is true, and I have no reason to disbelieve him, or indeed her if such he, or she, be, then that is indeed the same stunt as Apple pull and its very naughty and not really an issue worth us all arguing about when we all agree that its a pain in the bum.
Why fight amongst ourselves about which monolithic ravenous giant is worse when we can all join together singing rousing songs and go kick the shins of something so large we cant even see the top of its head!
fscked by SHA-1 collision? Not so fast, says Linus Torvalds