which PC

dennis@home wrote:
"George Kerby" wrote in message
...



You don't understand computer security at all do you?


Sure he does. He owns a Mac.

Which is not a secure system.
So it proves you are stupid.


How to win friends and influence people.

"John McWilliams" wrote in message
. ..
dennis@home wrote:


I just have this thing about computer security and I can't let the
demented carry on believing they are safe and increasing the risk to
everyone else.
Its worse when they tell people to buy Macs because they are safe.
It just isn't true and I have to point out their lies.

Demented? Lies? hah!

And Macs are inherently safer than PCs, right out of the box. Now, the
diligent and modestly intelligent PC user can properly care for the
security of his or her machine, which probably includes everyone in this
NG. Plus, there are a lot who've gained knowledge and are proud of their
DOS/Windows/Vista acumen, and for that reason alone won't even consider
using a Mac. Some even claim the gui is ugly.

macs may or may not be /safer/ out of the box but they are not safe.
To tell someone to buy one because it is /safe/ is telling lies.
To believe it to be true is being stupid.

"John McWilliams" wrote in message
. ..
dennis@home wrote:

I never claimed I was an expert just that I know that macs are not
secure.
Anyone who recommends a mac just because they are secure is being stupid.

Hardly any Mac user would recommend their platform merely because it is
more secure than Windows. There are dozens of other reasons.

But not in this thread.

"John McWilliams" wrote in message
. ..
dennis@home wrote:
"George Kerby" wrote in message
...



You don't understand computer security at all do you?


Sure he does. He owns a Mac.

Which is not a secure system.
So it proves you are stupid.


How to win friends and influence people.

I didn't start calling people stupid.

On Jun 8, 11:32 am, "dennis@home"
wrote:
"John McWilliams" wrote in message

. ..





dennis@home wrote:

I just have this thing about computer security and I can't let the
demented carry on believing they are safe and increasing the risk to
everyone else.
Its worse when they tell people to buy Macs because they are safe.
It just isn't true and I have to point out their lies.

Demented? Lies? hah!

And Macs are inherently safer than PCs, right out of the box. Now, the
diligent and modestly intelligent PC user can properly care for the
security of his or her machine, which probably includes everyone in this
NG. Plus, there are a lot who've gained knowledge and are proud of their
DOS/Windows/Vista acumen, and for that reason alone won't even consider
using a Mac. Some even claim the gui is ugly.

macs may or may not be /safer/ out of the box but they are not safe.
To tell someone to buy one because it is /safe/ is telling lies.
To believe it to be true is being stupid.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Is the car you drive safe? Nothing is absolutely safe. The fact that
there have been no large or small scale successful attacks on Mac's
would indicate they are safer than Windows ( up to Xp ). As for
someone saying Mac's are completely safe from attacks, I haven't seen
it. Who has been saying that?

On Jun 8, 1:24 am, Ron Hunter wrote:
M-M wrote:
In article ,
ASAAR wrote:

This
isn't to say that I have any interest in using a Mac, but NT and
Vista are siblings of Microsoft's Topsy family of Operating Systems,
whose excessive, bloated growth sometimes seems gruesome.

Maybe you aren't saying you're interested in a Mac, but you're getting
close.

I can't believe Windows would automatically restart without asking you
to save first.

I can't understand how Windows users tolerate updates that harm or slow
down the system.

Well, frankly, if I had to use a Mac, I just wouldn't use a computer.

This statement make you sound like just as much a zealot as any
MacHead.

I don't know if you are serious with your statement, but if so, why?

I use both Windows and Mac and they both work fine for photography
( which is the group we are posting to ), as well as doing many other
task.

I like the Mac OS better, but if Apple went out of business tomorrow,
I would only use Windows without much of a problem. You on the other
hand would give up digital photography, and computing altogether if
you had to use Mac OS. I think that way of thinking is about as
rational as an extreme Islamist.

dennis@home wrote:
"John McWilliams" wrote in message
. ..
dennis@home wrote:
"George Kerby" wrote in message
...

You don't understand computer security at all do you?


Sure he does. He owns a Mac.
Which is not a secure system.
So it proves you are stupid.

How to win friends and influence people.

I didn't start calling people stupid.

Well, then, now who did? And does repeating it ad naseum give you pleasure??

==
lsmft

In article , "dennis@home" wrote:

I never claimed I was an expert just that I know that macs are not secure.
Anyone who recommends a mac just because they are secure is being stupid.

You really have a problem with the concept of absolute and non absolute
statements.

Are humans bipeds? Any rational person would say yes, they are. The few
people missing a leg, or that obscure extended family that walks on all
fours is not enough to invalidate the phrase. So, "Macintosh computers
are secure." The fact that there has never been a single reported
instance of a virus or exploit in the field supports this statement
completely.

When someone says "Macintosh computers are completely secure under all
circumstances, and always will be." then you can start bitching.

By your definitions, a platform with tens of thousands of real-world
viruses and exploits is exactly the same as one that has a handful of
laboratory-only ones; because neither is absolutely secure.

Who's being stupid?

On 6/8/07 6:05 PM, in article , "Scott
Schuckert" wrote:

In article , "dennis@home" wrote:

I never claimed I was an expert just that I know that macs are not secure.
Anyone who recommends a mac just because they are secure is being stupid.

You really have a problem with the concept of absolute and non absolute
statements.

Are humans bipeds? Any rational person would say yes, they are. The few
people missing a leg, or that obscure extended family that walks on all
fours is not enough to invalidate the phrase. So, "Macintosh computers
are secure." The fact that there has never been a single reported
instance of a virus or exploit in the field supports this statement
completely.

When someone says "Macintosh computers are completely secure under all
circumstances, and always will be." then you can start bitching.

By your definitions, a platform with tens of thousands of real-world
viruses and exploits is exactly the same as one that has a handful of
laboratory-only ones; because neither is absolutely secure.

Who's being stupid?

Well stated and dead-on accurate. But our "expert in security" pompous ass
will never understand what you said, because he is in a world of his own.

David J Taylor wrote:
M-M wrote:
[]
Because there's is no Bill Gates who needs to be able to get into
everyone's system to check if they paid for it.

If Gates can get in, so can you.

Not that I agree with your supposition, but do you think that backdoors
don't exist in other OSes?

Hmm. Open source ones may have them, but it is hard to
see how.

--
--- Paul J. Gans