Print

Print


    I'm not an expert, but I think this issue boils down to how many people
have had viruses on their mac's vs pc's.  In 6 years, I have never had one
or even seen one (other then on hacker and security websites).  I have seen
quite a few PC's with viruses.  A way to almost entirely avoid the situation
is by using a hub, like an airport, which sets up a firewall in itself or
running a firewall program.  Right now, OSX comes with firewall built in,
although it's up to the user to either know how to set it up or to download
a program to configure it for you (for example Brickhouse)
    The automatic software updater glitch could be done just as easily on a
pc I think, but in order to install software on the mac that would redirect
the update server location, you would have to enter a password.  One other
benefit of Unix is the ability to run virus software from terminal, another
Unix feature of the OS.  While far from perfect, I think macs are far more
secure then PC's, and in the event of assuming a larger market and running
into more virus problems, I think steve jobs would find a  much more
effective solution then windows has.
    Although I'm sure apple would create a slick looking program called
ivirus and charge a fee for virus protection (like 99 a virus) and keep the
profits that the security firms have been making with windows.
That's my take,
Jeremy Swan

>
>
> I'm not trying to be a Mac apologist. I hope I was clear that there are Mac
> viruses, and low market share is one of the Mac's best defenses. I am well
> aware my computer is not invulnerable. That particular Trojan horse was just
> blown so far out of proportion in the media that it was driving me a little
> crazy. The general public goes very quickly from "they found a few
> vulnerablilities in the Mac OS," to "Macs MIGHT have as many vulnerabilities
> as Windows," to "Macs have as many or more security holes than Windows so who
> would want a Mac?" It's hard not to be just a little defensive when you're the
> underdog. ;-)
>
> I agree that indicating the file type in a file's name is useful under certain
> circumstances, but ideally that should be obvious from the file's icon and
> other interface cues. Labeling files in that way should be an option, not a
> requirement (IMHO). Metadata support would allow much more advanced
> functionality in the operating system. Just talk to any advocate of the
> defunct BeOS file system.
>
> Jeremy Stoller
> Senior Graphic Artist
> California Science Center
> (213) 744-2532
> [log in to unmask]
> www.CaliforniaScienceCenter.org
>>
>> ----------
>> From:   SciArt-L Discussion List-for Natural Science Illustration- on behalf
>> of Frank Ippolito
>> Reply To:       SciArt-L Discussion List-for Natural Science Illustration-
>> Sent:   Wednesday, May 12, 2004 9:05 AM
>> To:     [log in to unmask]
>> Subject:        Re: Lions and Tigers and Worms
>>
>>> The specific "Trojan horse virus" which Frank is referring to is a little
>> misleading however.<
>>
>> Actually Jeremy I was refering to a MAC techie article that I no longer
>> have the link for that outline a whole slew of potential issues. I find it
>> interesting that you need to explain that is really no problem. This
>> mindset that MACs are not vunerable is exactly what this article described.
>>
>> PS like Phillip I use those extensions to quickly navagate my files.
>> Windows hides them and I turn that feature off. A little less pretty but
>> vastly more efficient. $00.02
>>
>