SillyDog701

[DJGM]

This cartoon (from joyoftech.com) raised a chuckle . . .



I was going to put this in the "Penguin" forum, but I thought it'd more appropriate here . . .

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113

[Mandrake]

Well, this Dilbert cartoon certainly does remind me of Steve Job's and the G5 . . .

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040206 Firefox/0.8

[Antony]

Javier emailed me regarding one earlier post of this debate (on page 2) has some mistake.

The referred content:

Lots of open source stuff is good, Mozilla for example. But there is no need to discuss that here. Linux maybe UNIX like, but it contains no UNIX code, and is totally open source under the GPL.

So, if UNIX is closed source, like Windows, I don't believe that it is industry standards, or open or anything. I do agree that Darwin is open source, but not all of OS X is open source. Not that I argue that this is a bad thing, companies do need to make money off products.

And the correction provided by Javier,

There are both proprietary and open source UNIX flavors. FreeBSD is an open source UNIX flavor (a complete OS) derived from the BSD UNIX. Linux is not UNIX; Linux is a kernel based on MINIX. GNU userland + some other stuff + Linux kernel = GNU/Linux OS.

The Mac OS X userland is based on FreeBSD Unix. About licenses; FreeBSD is licensed under the BSD license (you can make derived work
proprietary) and Linux is licensed under the GPL license (you can't make derived work proprietary). Linux is not totally under the GPL license. There many software included on Linux distros licensed under different open source licenses such as the BSD license, artistic work license, etc.

I don't want a flamebait. This is just some feedback.

Thanks Javier for providing additional information.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/85.7 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/85.6

[Antony]

Back to debate,

according to a London-based security expert, mi2g, Mac OS X is the world's safest operating system

"The world's safest and most secure online server Operating System (OS) is proving to be the Open Source family of BSD (Berkley Software Distribution) and Mac OS X based on Darwin."

Another reason to use Mac OS X. Well, you can argue BSD is as safe as OS X, but it's not that easy to use compared to Mac OS X.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/85.7 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/85.6

[Mandrake]

BSD is NOT an OS for end users, it's primrarily a server OS - so of course OS X will be easier to use than it.

"Linux machines suffered 13,654 successful attacks, or 80 percent of the survey total. Windows based servers enjoyed a sharp decline in successful breaches, with only 2,005 attacks."

Security in Windows is getting much better, compared to Linux. There is also the factor of market share, since BSD/OS X is not used nearly as much as Linux or Windows on a server, of course they will suffer less attacks.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007

[fassassin]

MY OPINION: <------- make sure you read that..
I dont mind macs at all... i agree that they have a nice interface and some cool effect which you certainly can get for windows if you wanted to. About the changing the whole windows scheme thing.. i believe most people (at least the ones I know) do it because its fun to have something different.. like with windows computers a lot of people have different cases and and looks for their computer(s) i know i certainly do.. and for stability every mac computer ive been on or know people that have had them have had just as many problems with their mac as i had when i didnt know how to take care of a computer. Since 90% of google world uses windows.. doesnt mean that you would have a bigger security issue.. i mean if you were a hacker and you could either choose from 90% or 2% (i think that was it) i would certainly pick the 90%.. i think if the OS world was flipped around, apple would have just as many problems because of the bigger market of bad people to find holes in the OS. Now i have barely any mac experience.. so dont be mad if im super wrong or something.. im just writing what i feel and what ive thought up as i read this debate. what else.... oh yeah.. the dock.. you can find that for windows.. ive seen it and used it, i know its not as good but its not made by a company that has the money to spend on making the dock but rather a programmer.. one programmer (yzs dock) which apple pretty much made everyone take off of their site.. also since windows does account for almost all of the home computer users.. i wonder how many of them know how to maintain a computer.. whether be a mac or a ms OS all computers need to be maintained and dont say otherwise.. becuase there are way more companies and small time programmers out there that program for windows.. when you get all of these programs that require driver installs and system file configurations.. things just dont go well.. i dont know how people manage to make their OSs so unstable.. i rarely have my computer crash.. in fact the last time i remember was because of something wrong with alcohol 120%... these are all opinions.. or statements MADE UP by me by my own logic and thinking skills i know that people wont like my post or anything but i just wanted to express my mind.. sorry if i offended anybody and for not using proper english or big fancy words or.. not writing in proper format.. im tired and just want to type stuff..
http://www-edlab.cs.umass.edu/~ahelblin/misc/mac.html
and i know mac fans LOVE this article (DONT LIE)
(DJGM's warning - that links to a video with strong language.)

http://www.overclockers.com/tips1133/index.asp
edit: the link above was dead when i put it in here but was working earlier

K BYE

UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)

[wfisher]

Since 90% of google world uses windows.. doesnt mean that you would have a bigger security issue.. i mean if you were a hacker and you could either choose from 90% or 2% (i think that was it) i would certainly pick the 90%.. i think if the OS world was flipped around, apple would have just as many problems because of the bigger market of bad people to find holes in the OS.

See that is one huge misconception; it's a myth, really. As Bruce Schneier would argue, "security through obscurity is not security." So what I'm saying is that in fact OS X is much more secure than the Windows equivalents though everyone attributes that apparent security to Apple's "luck" that they aren't the most popular OS and don't get attacked. Not true, there is no luck at all, BSD is, by that recent London-based report, and admittedly-so in geek circles, the most stable OS in the world. BSD is open source and highly developed, even Linux doesn't compare because the idea behind Linux is constant development while BSD is maintained by a few elite developers. BSD servers are getting hit at all the time but no one hears about it because they don't come down! In fact BSD makes up a large % of the server arena because it is so secure and developed. So in fact there is no such obscurity necessarily, hackers are continually trying to take down servers and this, of course, includes BSD servers. Apple is also extremely prompt to any security vulnerabilites, they release patches every few weeks. And of course there is the fact that out-of-the-box, Apple keeps the OS secure since 99% of people don't even look at those settings, they might as well be set conservatively. Open ports are kept to a minimum and user accounts don't have root access, in fact you need a password to install applications. By that token, rogue programs don't have the permissions to change stuff around because they are run under user privledges which is not root and is sufficiently dumbed down so that such malicilous code couldn't change anything if it wanted to. There is other stuff like "Mail" giving warnings before opening attachments which contrasts well to OE which can launch attachments if you right-click, I forget the story but that was going around when MyDoom hit, that OE would execute it if you merely right-clicked on the message. Hope you see my point.

-Will Fisher

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/124 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/125

[Antony]

Back to why you should get a Mac instead of a PC,
Bluetooth is better on a Mac, PCWorld said.

When it comes down to it, there are still too many seams showing in Bluetooth on Windows. Sure, if you're a savvy user you can make it work. But unless you're really phobic about a few cables, why spend the time? And in this case, the Mac mystique has some substance behind it. Setting up my whole Bluetooth network on the Mac was quick and painless from start to finish--and truly wireless, unlike the Logitech DiNovo [Windows] set.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) (CK-SillyDog)

[bomfunk]

I am a windows user.
like windows user i like the thing about windows that mac users hate.
do i hate macs? no i dont i just perfer windows computers. yes windows has its problems but so does mac os it all depends on what you want to do with your computer for novice computer users there is no question that macs are easier to use. but for somebody like me how has been using windows since 3.11 find mac os slow and painfull to navigate around.

macs are wonderfull computers , but remember windows XP is also great considering all the different vendors of compents and software then is for windows

so in the end is the i think the mac platform is more stable and easy but windows is just so much more flexible

UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)

[Antony]

Okay, thanks for your comments.

I use both Windows and Mac.

...
but for somebody like me how has been using windows since 3.11 find mac os slow and painfull to navigate around.

Well, I had my first computer back in late 80s, running MS-DOS 3.2, then upgraded with Microsoft, MS-DOS 5, then 6. I started using Windows 3.0 then 3.1 in early 90s. then Windows 95, 98, 98SE, 2000, and now XP Pro.

I switched myself to Mac last year, and I found it so easy to use, so easy to navigate. No problems for me at all. Everything is so intuitive. Why learning all the stupid steps with Windows? I just told myself, I should have started with a Mac.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/124 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/125.1

[bomfunk]

reason why i love windows over macs
1) more hardware choise
2) for software
3) basicly its standard everywhere
4) two button mice
5) oh so many lovely tweaks
6) so easy to customise

when i say windows i mean windows XP when mac say how unstable windows is they realy need to use that lastest microsoft has to offer

also i aways seem to stuff up any mac im on

example:
at friends place he has a imac (older) running OSX i bring my ipod (40gb model) and find it has no firewire so no probs i just connect the usb plug and bam!!!!!!!!!!!!! mac os finds the ipod and nicely tries to load them on the computer.

the problem mac harddrive 6gb ipod 40gb error message about no harddrive space then it just freezes

UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)

[Mandrake]

"for software" - Who cares? On Mac OS X or Linux there is tons of software.. who cares if you don't have 50 ftp clients to choose from? On Linux I can find several good FTP clients to choose from.

" basicly its standard everywhere" - How does this effect someone using Linux or a Mac?

"two button mice" - What stops someone from plugging a USB mouse into their Mac?

"oh so many lovely tweaks" - Do you know how much more I can customize Linux under the hood that you can tweak Windows?

"so easy to customise" - Panther is just as easy to use and customize as Windows XP is, as is a modern version of Linux with KDE 3.x or Gnome 2.x.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Konqueror/3.1; Linux)

[rons]

I bought a biege G3 300mhz and built a PII 300 mhz at the same time in 1998, the Mac is still running and the PC needs it's 3rd mother board now to run for over 5 minutes.
Maybe Abit doesn't make reliable products, it has not run for 1.5 years now and I don't see a need to fix it.
The Mac was twice as fast as the PC in graphics programs like Brice 3 and POV, both available for Mac and PC.
All of my 5 Macs still work, the oldest is a SE 30, I wish I had kept the 4 older ones.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02

[Mandrake]

I bought a biege G3 300mhz and built a PII 300 mhz at the same time in 1998, the Mac is still running and the PC needs it's 3rd mother board now to run for over 5 minutes.
Maybe Abit doesn't make reliable products, it has not run for 1.5 years now and I don't see a need to fix it.
The Mac was twice as fast as the PC in graphics programs like Brice 3 and POV, both available for Mac and PC.
All of my 5 Macs still work, the oldest is a SE 30, I wish I had kept the 4 older ones.

That's why a P4 or Athlon64 will trash a Mac in anything, and they cost a lot less

UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)

[Antony]

Not exactly, there are many other factors besides the clock speed, rendering speed.
I don't think you can build a nice looking environment (physical appearance) with PCs of those cheap price tags.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/124 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/125.1