Yes, last century.
So, a thoroughly modern and informed opinion. I can understand the rush to profanity. Apple is so lazy.
1 Like
Bill Gates: I think this is an issues that will be decided by the courts and congress.
The Press: ZOMG Bill Gates says we must sacrifice babies and end encryption. Also, if you forward his email, heâll give you $100!
1 Like
How do we decide on the balance between individual rights to privacy, and the ability of institutions to do their job? The US situation seem to beâŚ
The law would require a precedent. To establish that precedent, an institution finds a case where the guilty party is dead, and pretty unquestionably guilty, as well as appearing alien to most of the population on grounds of race and religion. They argue that a commercial company should do their job and invade this personâs privacy for them, though the case is closed. And they appeal to the media.
The company (Apple) would have to bear the costs of this, and perhaps an unending stream of similar requests; and to shoulder the responsibility of having done this in the future should the policy change. Or they can make a stand, which not only saves money, but is also good advertising. And they appeal to the media.
The media seek out someone conspicuous from a rival company. They find someone who is not speaking for the company, and not responsible for its current policies. They mine what he said for soundbites that will give the opinion that backs the Government side, and quote him. Bear in mind how much the Government side have groomed their particular villain, this is not un unreasonable opinion to have, and many (though not I) may agree with him. Then they appeal to the media.
The issue is then decided by the performance of Apple and Microsoft shares. Or whatever is due process in the US these days. The People have Spoken! Right? Donât think so? Appeal to the media!
This all looks a bit odd to some of us outside the USA.
2 Likes
Please show me a computer built in 2001 that is still operational and that runs Windows 10. I wait with bated breath.
1 Like
Now you know how it feels when we Americans see British tabloid headlines.
1 Like
The better trick is that you probably wonât be able to buy a new computer in 2018 that will run Windows before 10.
1 Like
Weâve replaced a few of these over the last year, for speed and because XP is no longer supported. We still have a few left (protected by 3rd-party firewalls etc.) As mentioned theyâve had RAM upgrades, but thatâs all. But theyâre still running.
Thereâs no reason why they wouldnât run Windows 10. Sure, it would be slow compared to todayâs multi-core PCs. But it would run, and it would be fast enough for web browsing and business apps.
Ah. Just like most of us in the UK too, then.
2 Likes
This kind of shit is why I quit working at Microsoft.
3 Likes
Unlike Google?
2 Likes
Iâm reminded of the old geopolitical strategy game Balance of Power, which I used to run on Windows 1.0: Backing terrorists would inevitably get a country into a lot of trouble. The exception was Iran, because everyone simply expected it of them.
Privacy issues get Microsoft and Apple in trouble. People complain when Windows send back telemetry. But strip-mining your data - through Android, Chrome, Nest hardware, searches and whatnot - doesnât get Google in trouble because everyone simply expects it of them.
1 Like
Iâm sorry but this is a ludicrous claim. Windows [insert version number here] is not secure, compared to other modern operating systems. It does not have a particularly great kernel (and has a comparatively small team working on its kernel). Thereâs a reason why major stock markets, supercomputers, the Internet on the whole, etc. etc. almost all use the same OSâand that OS is not Windows.
Actually, servers on the internet are about evenly divided between Windows, Unix and Linux.
This changes of course, depending on sources. Game and personal servers will no doubt have Linux in the lead, while Windows takes a command lead for the top 99 NASDAQ securities. Mac OS is just down in the noise not matter what source you use.
Despite claims of Linux servers being more secure, this hasnât translated into real world experience.
MAC OS and Linux on the desktop do better. Not because theyâre more secure, but because with far fewer desktops, theyâre not worth targeting.
2 Likes
While Linux is by design a security nightmare, and Mac OS X is worse, OpenBSD is more secure in principle, by design, and in terms of having years go by with no CVEs. OpenBSD is not an ideal desktop OS though. In real-world terms of actual vulnerabilities, MS has a very, very poor track record. Maybe itâs all better in Win10, but that will take time to tell.
that graph is bullshit, Iâll leave it as an exercise to the reader to figure out why
http://www.nairaland.com/2835790/software-most-vulnerabilities-2015-mac
1 Like
That graph was a running total of CVEs, not one year, which I though was clear from my comment, but I guess not. The article you posted was some commentary and a screenshot of:
https://www.cvedetails.com/top-50-products.php?year=2015
I didnât say Apple was good, I said they were worse than Linux, but also noted that MS has a very, very poor track record. Maybe itâll all better in Win10, but that will take time to tell.
I did say âon the wholeâ. But Google, Amazon, and Facebook run on Linux servers, for example.
MAC OS and Linux on the desktop do better. Not because theyâre more secure, but because with far fewer desktops, theyâre not worth targeting.
Sure Windows is larger target than MacOS, Linux, BSD etc., but also because its security is laughable. I use Windows alongside of Linux, and am not an inept user of either, but even turning on all sorts of âprotectionâ in Windows, itâs nearly impossible to avoid malware/viruses without disconnecting from the Internet. The official MS Windows store on Windows10 is full of software riddled with malware, as far as my experience shows.
And Linux is certainly worth targetting for certain purposes - sure, it has a smaller overall share of machines (unless you count in Android, in which case a true majority of machins run Linux), but in general Windows isnât used for mission-critical purposes. And this is becoming more and more true (the US military is transitioning to Linux for many purposes at least, in part due to having had infected machines when they ran with Windows).
well based on my own limited anecdotal experience⌠when I was the local security contact for a few months before a reorg⌠i was on an alert email and linux, unix, windows ooops need to patch for hackers alerts were pretty equal.
1 Like
the graph is bullshit because itâs not comparing like with like, itâs comparing things in different units, lumping OSes and apps together, itâs completely meaningless. Windows has been just as secure in principle since around the time XP SP3 and definitely by the time Vista came out (Vista was a shit OS, but for other reasons). Win 10 hasnât increased security in any fundamental way, itâs been solid for years now.
1 Like
This much I am in agreement on.
1 Like
