http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17623422 whi
Having spent the past 4 days making films with people apparantly brainwashed by apple, I am extremely tempted to scream HAHAHAHAHA maniacaly while running in small circles. Especially as apple to so so long to issue the patch! Needless to say, I am too nice for the screaming of hahas, but still... Shame on you apple (an(and the criminal virus people too ofcourse)
ax
The way Mac fans always claimed immunity from has virii always annoyed me.
In the early 90s there was an outbreak of a cross-platform MSWord macro virus which kept repeatedly flaring up where I worked. The PCs were not networked in our department - so the virus was being spread via floppy disk. After one frustrating flare-up, I was able to trace the movement of some floppies - and realised the source of the reinfection was an Apple Mac! We only had one mac, which one of the secretaries used for DTP (on Quark) - but she also ran MSWord and would import & tweak documents. Every floppy that touched that mac came back infected - but as the received wisdom was that macs were immune, nobody had thought of checking the machine.
On Fri, Apr 06, 2012 at 08:22:45AM +0000, D.Bolton U0970268 wrote:
The way Mac fans always claimed immunity from has virii always annoyed me.
I can get equally annoyed by GNU/Linux users who claim similar. ;)
Simon
On Friday 06 April 2012 09:22:45 D.Bolton U0970268 wrote:
Every floppy that touched that mac came back infected - but as the received wisdom was that macs were immune, nobody had thought of checking the machine.
Good lesson there, sounds rather nightmarish. Reminds me of a time I killed ~10 CPUs with a cheap CPU fan, before realising that the fan was the common factor (having ruled out everything else from static to voltage to human hair).
On Friday 06 April 2012 14:27:22 Simon Ward wrote:
I can get equally annoyed by GNU/Linux users who claim similar. ;)
Is "virtually immune" reasonable to say when talking to Windows users? "Relatively immune" breaks the definition a bit too much.
Thanks,
Sam.
On Fri, Apr 06, 2012 at 04:45:47PM +0100, Sam Tuke wrote:
On Friday 06 April 2012 14:27:22 Simon Ward wrote:
I can get equally annoyed by GNU/Linux users who claim similar. ;)
Is "virtually immune" reasonable to say when talking to Windows users? "Relatively immune" breaks the definition a bit too much.
I like the introduction on the Wikipedia page for “Linux malware”[1]:
“very well‐protected, but not immune”
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_malware
Simon
Thats a great link Simon, thanks, will refrence that as needed :-)
On Saturday, April 7, 2012, Simon Ward simon+fsfe@bleah.co.uk wrote:
On Fri, Apr 06, 2012 at 04:45:47PM +0100, Sam Tuke wrote:
On Friday 06 April 2012 14:27:22 Simon Ward wrote:
I can get equally annoyed by GNU/Linux users who claim similar. ;)
Is "virtually immune" reasonable to say when talking to Windows users? "Relatively immune" breaks the definition a bit too much.
I like the introduction on the Wikipedia page for “Linux malware”[1]:
“very well‐protected, but not immune”
Simon
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall
On 7 Apr 2012, at 09:37, Simon Ward wrote:
On Fri, Apr 06, 2012 at 04:45:47PM +0100, Sam Tuke wrote:
On Friday 06 April 2012 14:27:22 Simon Ward wrote:
I can get equally annoyed by GNU/Linux users who claim similar. ;)
Is "virtually immune" reasonable to say when talking to Windows users? "Relatively immune" breaks the definition a bit too much.
I like the introduction on the Wikipedia page for “Linux malware”[1]:
“very well‐protected, but not immune”
I wrote a little on the background to why Unix-like operating systems tend to be more secure even assuming as many software defects as Windows: http://webmink.com/2012/02/27/is-windows-to-blame-for-viruses/
S.