On 03/05/2006, at 10:02 AM, Paul wrote:
On 02/05/2006, at 2:22 PM, Paul Weaver wrote:
I have just read an interesting article on the Washington Post
which is not
very optimistic about Mac security. See it at
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2006/05/
a_time_to_patch_iii_apple
_2.html
The author of this article seems to be implying that Apple needs to
be responding to security threats more like Microsoft does.
He uses security response time as the comparison.
People have been demanding secure, stable computing from MS for
years, their response: XP SP2, excuse me while I clear my throat ;-)
One quote in the article says that Apple is where MS was 5 years
ago, I guess the implication is they should emulate today's MS,
what the....?
One point was they should be releasing products/updates earlier so
companies can test prior to deployment.
Personally I would rather wait than pay for the privilege to do a
software company's R&D.
I am not a beta tester!
To me this is like some cynical version of the Open Source
community. Yet so many users are comfortable with this type of
situation.
It seems to me that this type of article/blog merely provides a
fora for self opinionated Mac detractors to say "Yes! Thats what I
keep saying".
I can recognise these folks when they use terms like "Mac-heads".
To me these articles remind me of some peoples tendency to
criticise something that is clearly sophisticated and advanced so
as to position themselves above it, e.g. I hate Lamborghinis, they
have no ashtrays.
As one user comments below this article: "nothing (new?) to see
here, move along".
Cheers
Paul
Thank you Paul for so eloquently putting into words what I thought
about 'The Article'!
Cheers,
Ronni
When Microsoft asks you, "Where do you want to go today?" Tell them,
"Apple!"
