Doug White writes:
It would be nearly impossible for computer software makers to provide
against any type of attack by those so inclined. The result is that
they are reactive rather than pro-active.
That's not the point. The difference in degree of security between
Windows and Mac OS X is
Think globally. Even though this forum has NA as its heading, we need to
think globally when suggesting solutions. You'll never get any sort of
licensing globally nor will you EVER get end users (globally) educated
enough to stop doing the things that they do which allow these events to
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 09:21:02 -0500 (CDT), Adi Linden wrote:
Since many gateway service providers will not prevent insufficiently
skilled users from connecting to the internet and injuring others, the
only remaining solution, as far as I can see, is cutting connectivity
with those enablers.
As for the specifics of your comments, I could not disagree more, but it
is a philosophy of life that distinguishes our views, not the analysis of
the problem. I believe (like a lot of other New Englanders and even
some from California) that people must assume responsibility for their
[snip]
:
: My argument is that a computer needs to be in a safe state by default. I
: firmly believe that if I buy a brand new box from any reputable vendor
: with a premium operating system of choice I should be able to connect this
: device to a local broadband connection indefinitely. It
Operating systems bundled with a retail computer _should_ be reasonably
secure out of the box.
OS X can be placed on a unprotected internet connection in a unpatched
state and it's default configuration allows it to be patched to current
levels without it being compromised.
On the other hand
