What is Digg?34 Comments
- aristotle0dude, on 10/12/2007, -1/+41How does that make any sense?
The guy seems to think that because macs are X86, they share code in common with windows. Please. This guy is talking out of his arse. - thepharmacist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+36"Moving to x86 means that the Mac shares some common code with the PC -- example, network drivers"
No. - domr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+35Research group Gartner have absolutely no idea what they're talking about.
- wqwert, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18I, for one, am sick of seeing Gartner cited as a credible source about anything. They only take briefings from companies that pay for the chance to talk to them (http://armadgeddon.blogspot.com/2006/03/is-gartner-subtly-going-pay-to-play.html). The other IT research firms are much more credible, IMO.
- Quix, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20And I'm sure I speak for all OS X users when I say: thank you Microsoft! For years we've worried ourselves sick about the safety and security of our chosen computing platform. Not a single night goes by that I don't think about the inevitable appearance of the first REAL virus or malware to afflict me and my machine. Without you at the helm, I surely could not browse in tranquility.
You are indeed a benevolent dictator. Praise be your name, Dear Leader. - LaughingMan11, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17Yeah... this guy doesn't know what he's talking about with respect to drivers. An x86 Mac OS X driver for a peripheral is going to share more in common with the PowerPC version of the same driver than with the Windows version.
Mac OS X and Windows have drastically different driver architectures. - illicium, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15Marked as inaccurate. This guy doesn't know what he's talking about. :|
- HanSolo69, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12wow, i'm so happy to know that my AMD based machine is apparently safe from all forms of attack according to this report.
- Maverick18x, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12The only good thing Microsoft has ever done in terms of Mac security is discontinuing the Mac versions of Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player.
- etnu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Drivers tend to be pretty performance critical and frequently incorporate hand-tuned assembly. Usually it's just C, though. It's certainly true that drivers for x86 OSX builds are more like their x86 Windows counterparts than their PowerPC cousins are, but they're still far from "the same code".
That being said, there's more common code between Photoshop on OSX and Photoshop on Windows than on network drivers because the kernel APIs are quite different.
Windows security is NOT a function of the 3rd-party code being written for it, by and large. The majority of it's problems stem from:
1. Everything running as a privilaged user (duh!)
2. Scriptable components like ActiveX not running in a sandboxed environment
3. Crappy process support which causes developers to have to rely on the total hack known as svchost.exe. This process is actually just a host for other processes -- it simply loads each process as a thread *on a single process*! If you don't understand why this is a problem, spend some time reading about memory space protection. Multiple processes that share the same memory space? Surely that's not going to cause any problems! Most windows "services" actually run as threads under svchost.
Notice how all of these problems are a function of poor design choices at much lower levels than what application developers deal with.
The best quote from this article has to be this one: "With Windows largely closed up, mass attacks have stopped". JESUS ***** CHRIST ON A POGO STICK, MAN! What kind of crack is gartner smoking?
Then again, these are the SAME people that have been telling us that programmers should stop "programming" and start "reusing components" instead. ***** tools. - skoles, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Wrap your head around that headline description!
- otomo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Wow, now I know that Gartner opinions are worthless.
Right, so x86 windows == x86 os X? Not so much buddy. You can argue the EFI angle, but that is pretty weak.
Most drivers just use kernel apis anyway with a very thin assembly layer that (obviously) is quite tailored to the api. Can we taser people that spout off wrong information? Not just here but in real life too? - gothicx00, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8If the group is trying to say that because Windows is more secure therefore keeping the attentions of writers of malicous code busy with their preferred platform, then yes maybe the article has somewhat of a point. Also it would go with out saying that if there wasn't a incredibly sucessful worm or virus Windows in the recent past, there definatly wouldn't be one for OSX
But the whole bit about OSX and Windows sharing similar code is complete *****. The "research" group instantly gets negative credability for such a statement, and gets marked as inacurate by this digger. - CalgaryTechGuy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Gartner really should hire someone who knows what they are talking about and better editors.
- greatcaffeine, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8And of course, it all goes back to the basic security thing in OS X... you have to authorize malware before it can do serious damage. If you're stupid enough to blindly authorize anything that pops up, you deserve to have your computer messed up.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Gartner Research is about as insightful and accurate as *anything* posted on The Inquirer. I guess they share journalists or sources or something.
Seriously though, how can they be so wrong and retain credibility? It hurts my brain to even consider it. - Doughboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6You mean more PCs than macs.
- neom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Am I the only one sick of hearing "There are more macs then PCs so no one bothers writing viruses and spyware for them" every time an article is written on the subject? Although Windows has the market share, I think it would be the ultimate win for a "1227 h4x0r" to write a virus that would bring the mac world to a screeching halt, then we could stop bragging about how much we rock. :)
Got darwin? Yeah.. that's what I thought. - CrankyMcGuy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I don't think people realize you're being sarcastic. ;)
- Doughboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Hmm, so basically the prediction by the vice president of Gartner 18 months ago, that the OS X platform was going to be hit by serious worms/spyware/virues etc., didn't come to true. So instead of admitting that they were incorrect, they make up a story how Microsoft indirectly prevented this catastrophe by patching their Windows OS, and throw in some BS how OS X now must run same vulnerable code as Windows does since it runs on Intel now. This is the funniest thing I ever heard, but the sad part is I know people who would actually believe this article.
Thank you Microsoft for making my OS X more secure! - wolever, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Yea, I'm going to have to agree with you on that one...
From TFA:
"Moving to x86 means that the Mac shares some common code with the PC -- example, network drivers. These drivers opened up a target attack weakness in the Mac that was discovered because the drivers have common components," said Reynolds.
This makes about as much sense as saying "Hey, Windows runs on computers... and Mac runs on computers... So they MUST share code!"
Oh wait... The SCO already tried that = - Elen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I'm still waiting for the Gartner report: "We don't really have a clue".
- streetlamp, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I thought it was widely accepted that a windows machine was a PC while a OS X machine was a Mac. "The Mac alone does not have a dense enough population to support a mass attack -- only one in 50 or so PCs is a Mac. Therefore, the risk of a mass attack is minimal. It is the targeted attacks that are a concern."
0 in 50 PCs are Macs because they are Macs. - FluffyArmada, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Wouldn't the drivers for be written for the abstraction layer in the OS rather than for the hardware? Or am I wrong here? (I'm not making an attempt to contradict anything you said.)
- Zippo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Saying Windows makes OS X more secure is like saying... I actually can't think of a worse analogy.
- CrankyMcGuy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3There are two reasons why the contents of this article should be chucked into the bin without further consideration: ZDNet and Gartner - two organizations that go out of their way to badmouth Macs whenever possible. Their mottos seem to be "Why focus on real shortcomings in the OS X platform when we can make stuff up instead!" Pure FUD.
Good for a laugh, though, if you're not easily taken in.
Dugg down for being inaccurate. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3And now, removing VBA in Office:Mac 2007. No more Macro viruses!
- h3xley, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The hilarious thing is, the move to intel keeps macs safer, not more vulnerable, as now virus writers have to target 2 architectures to run on. The mac already has a small enough market share to prevent spreading, no need to split that into ppc and x86...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2hahaha! what story you commented that?!
- mdalan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I wonder what will happen to the author once Gartner realizes how embarrassing this is...
- xtr3m, on 10/12/2007, -9/+8Hurray for Microsoft!
- iSkylla, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Two Words: Proof Read.
- Aloyarc, on 10/12/2007, -15/+3Test your might.
Test your might.
Test your might...
MORTAL KOMBAT!
Crap, wrong story.
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is