tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4202507793705383029.post8645410330875540139..comments2023-10-26T01:41:49.462-07:00Comments on The home of a Very Grumpy Bunny: Is WIndows 7 still a Crossgrade? Yes.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08951185953504736035noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4202507793705383029.post-84373252080518007062010-01-03T17:38:31.257-08:002010-01-03T17:38:31.257-08:00Sure, it IS true that Win7 is a crossgrade, by tha...Sure, it IS true that Win7 is a crossgrade, by that definition. However, that happens to be the very definition that's been used for software upgrades since forever: you trade what you have for something purported to be "new" and "improved", but which inevitably has its own issues to boot.<br /><br />So, perhaps we should leave off the semantic nonsense, and stick with the existing term?<br /><br />And yes, as viruses go, I have to second what bri2 posted: More viruses exist that affect Windows systems because either A) there's more profit in attacks Windows business systems (not many businesses use Apple/Linux systems) or B) the designer is trying to negatively impact as many people as possible (and since Windows has the largest market share, the same amount of effort goes further by targeting Windows).Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05686277039594962358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4202507793705383029.post-37855541223354610822009-11-26T06:46:10.235-08:002009-11-26T06:46:10.235-08:00re: the LSE and Windows. Apparently whatever they...re: the LSE and Windows. Apparently whatever they ARE using in the backend is crap anyway. It crashed for most of the trading day yet again. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/26/lse_crash_again/Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16697092986807123307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4202507793705383029.post-41084271914292444272009-11-04T13:27:15.944-08:002009-11-04T13:27:15.944-08:00If we are going to argue straight # of viruses = %...<i>If we are going to argue straight # of viruses = % installed base then Mac OSX should have at least 5+% of the viruses running around in the wild. As of current count? 0.</i><br /><br />OSX has 0 viruses, in the purest sense of the term (executable code that attaches itself to a program or file so that it can spread from one computer to another). Older Apple systems do have true viruses, so that argument only holds true for the newest and shiniest version.<br /><br />Additionally, OSX <i>does</i> have malware (trojans, worms, spyware, etc.), which most people would call a virus even if, strictly speaking, it isn't one. And these are things an antivirus program will pick up, too, so they're far from unimportant in the eyes of security manufacturers.<br /><br />A virus/malware writer generally cares about one of two things. (1) Anonymous internet fame, for creating a well-known malicious program (most wouldn't <i>admit</i> to writing it, but if it becomes a serious security threat, it makes them feel good). (2) Profit from the results of whatever the malicious program does. For both cases, the much larger market of Windows machines is more viable, either financially or for potential for destruction.<br /><br />In addition to sane reasons for targeting Windows over Mac, the "true" virus style of malware is becoming less and less common of late, with trojans and spyware becoming more and more popular. I can't pretend to know why that trend exists, but the only metric a Mac user can use to claim OSX has 0 viruses is if they strictly define a virus program such that they are correct; and their definition matches a program type that is becoming less popular among the malware writers in general, so it isn't entirely surprising. The trojans, spyware, etc. which are becoming more prominent on today's internet, however, <i><b>DO</b></i> exist on OSX. iBotNet is one example of an OSX trojan in the wild right now. MacSweeper is a malicious application which claims several legitimate files are trash/viruses/etc. and must be deleted, but the "trial version" that was installed can't perform the action, so you must purchase the full version for $39.99.<br /><br />To my knowledge, the amount of Linux and Mac malware is comparable, because their underlying architectures are comparable. I don't know anything about Symbian, so I won't comment on your claims there pretending that I do.briĀ²https://www.blogger.com/profile/07250048990666572657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4202507793705383029.post-55395320597207867032009-10-27T14:40:14.707-07:002009-10-27T14:40:14.707-07:00A commenter above decided to pull out the old tire...A commenter above decided to pull out the old tired and repeated falsified "but Windows has more viruses cause there are more Windows computers" arguement. If we are going to argue straight # of viruses = % installed base then Mac OSX should have at least 5+% of the viruses running around in the wild. As of current count? 0. OK next up if Mac OSX has 0 then certainly the even more rare Linux OS should have a similar 0 count right? Nope? While virusus for the various flavors of Linux are much less destrctive than for Windows there are quite a few (certainly many many fewer than Windows - you probably need to lop off some zeros actually). Wait! Lets follow the arguement a bit farther... Symbian, which has about .15% of the market even has viruses running about. Lets just get past the "there are more Windows machines out there" arguement and realize that its just that Windows is that much more an inferior product.Scimberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05284244058836416026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4202507793705383029.post-84716384345116298402009-10-25T21:14:00.625-07:002009-10-25T21:14:00.625-07:00...Mac-Truck...
I see what you did there.
- Ben...<i>...Mac-Truck...</i><br /><br />I see what you did there.<br /><br /><br />- Ben (yes, THAT Ben)Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11104818773250977671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4202507793705383029.post-36579187888152370392009-10-25T17:06:40.862-07:002009-10-25T17:06:40.862-07:00The list of known virus's in the wild lists in...<i>The list of known virus's in the wild lists into the hundreds each day, while Linux, BSD, OSX, and pretty much everybody else chugs along peacefully.</i><br /><br />While true, it's more important to note the number of clueless end-users (most susceptible to any given virus) who use each system. While Apple has been gaining marketshare, Microsoft still dominates the home computer market. The people running high-performance Linux servers aren't going to be clicking links in their email to applications sent by wealthy princes from Nigeria.<br /><br />Yes, there are more viruses that affect Windows systems. There are also more people that <b>use</b> Windows systems that are likely to be taken in and hurt by the virus. It's kind of a perverse supply-demand scenario.briĀ²https://www.blogger.com/profile/07250048990666572657noreply@blogger.com