>> their hardware
>> is built well, and built to last. And security? Um...
>
>I've seen better. I have better. (I also have a couple of
>Macintosh's, a IIGS, etc... which still work fine, to be
>fair)
I was making the comparison to the WinTel world, forgetting that without
specifying that on this list, I opened the comment to compare them to a
slew of machines that would blow Apple out of the water. Sorry it was my
Mac Evangelist side popping out too quickly.
>> compared to what?
>
>VMS? :) Even a poorly configured Unix -- until OS X.
>MacOS had no built-in security at that point. (I hope you
>won't seriously suggest that "At Ease" counts... :)
Ok... I was thinking security as in how often we loose or destroy your
files. Not how often we let someone steal your files. No Apple doesn't
excel at keeping the files intact, but they are no worse than many others.
In terms of allowing someone to steal or alter your files, I agree, short
of encrypting the files, there is nothing acceptable on the Mac pre-OS X
(at least OS 9 finally added built in encryption if you wanted to use it).
I have seen few even half way decent security systems to keep people off
your Mac. And even the half way decent ones tend to be easy to bypass if
you have sufficient access to the machine (ie: steal it and take your
time)
Although, in the Mac's defense, in terms of "hacker" access from over the
internet, I will trust my Mac running any pre-OS X version of the OS
before I will trust ANY other OS (even well configured Unix). In that
line, then I stand by my overly stated statement saying that the Mac has
far better security.
-chris
<
http://www.mythtech.net>
Received on Wed May 01 2002 - 12:04:10 BST