4 ms·

For practical purposes, that's not true. Macs do not allow running unsigned software by default, and no one runs antivirus on Mac, ever. So even if they were c

For practical purposes, that's not true. Macs do not allow running unsigned software by default, and no one runs antivirus on Mac, ever. So even if they were commonly being infected, which they aren't, the person above would have organizational indemnity if someone were infected because they're following industry best practices by not running antivirus on Mac. If you want, you can further restrict Macs to only App Store software, which is heavily sandboxed. Then you can go even further by not allowing the individual users to install software on their own, if you really want to be draconian about it. Unless someone is being individually targeted, running very outdated software, or is intentionally trying to get themselves infected, it will not happen. Even if all three conditions are true, it's still very unlikely. Anyone who says otherwise is just fear mongering. That same level of fear mongering could point to the dozens of pieces of malware that have been released for Linux. I say this as someone who uses a Linux laptop for work and a Windows desktop at home. I don't have a dog in this fight. I do, however, try to stay very informed about the state of software security.

__mifflin 8y ago
> and no one runs antivirus on the Mac, ever. Working at a large company (also not one of the famous silicon valley tech companies) and if you get a macbook, they are managed remotely and have BitDefender installed.
- coder543 8y ago
  I sometimes forget how much big companies enjoy spending money. I once worked for a large company where every developer was issued a full copy of Microsoft Office, even though most of them worked inside a fullscreen Linux VM all day. Outlook was the only piece of Office that my coworkers and I used, and I would have been happier using a tab open to a webmail provider inside the VM than having to use Outlook to connect to Exchange. That was far from the only unnecessary software they paid for. Why use Git when you can pay for Perforce!
  - viraptor 8y ago
    > every developer was issued a full copy of Microsoft Office Enterprise volume licenses. It probably cost them less than the time/money they'd lose if you spenta few minutes trying to figure out how to open some file sent by non-devs.
  - pjmlp 8y ago
    > Why use Git when you can pay for Perforce! Nice graphical tooling and sane developer experience.
    - Murk 8y ago
      I consider perforce "views" to be burdonsome and not so sane. The rest of the experience may be less jarring than git for many.
  - golergka 8y ago
    If you're working in the game industry, and your repository includes a lot of huge binary files that are mergable, perfoce is a godsend. Also, p4merge is the best merging utility for any VCS, and I always install it alongside git if I work in Windows.
    - mariusmg 8y ago
      >p4merge is the best merging utility for any VCS What makes it "the best" ? Honest question, i found it kludgy and settled for Kdiff3.
    - shandor 8y ago
      p4merge is indeed awesome. I work exclusively in Linux environments, but p4merge always gets installed. The experience has actually gotten better in that regard since git started supporting it straight as one of its 'mergetools'.
  - dagw 8y ago
    Why use Git when you can pay for Perforce! Perforce integrates very nicely with a whole bunch of third party tools in a way git does not, and is on the whole a lot easier to use for most people than git (and I'm saying this as someone who doesn't like Perforce at all)
pjmlp 8y ago
In many enterprises you are only allowed to connect laptops into the network if an anti-virus is present, that includes company issued Macs.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- petepete 8y ago
  And this is why I used to have a laptop in my drawer I used for logging into the proper intranet, booking holidays and organising my pension. All my actual work was done on Unix/Unix-like machines on our own old network, something we clung on to after acquisition.
- CathyWest 8y ago
  I used to run John Norstad's Disinfectant in Classic Mode years ago. Of course it did nothing but, but it did get me on the network, and that's all that mattered. Plus, the about box was always fun to bring up.
em500 8y ago
> Macs do not allow running unsigned software by default, and no one runs antivirus on Mac, ever. My company-issued MBP is running something called "Cylance Protect" (and "TrendMicro" earlier). And also something called "Forecpoint DLP". I have no control over any of that, software just appears and disappears. I think it's done by something called "Jamf". I don't really care either way. The only thing I actually use on the Mac is Chrome for email/calendaring/vidconf and some intranet sites. Actual work is all on Linux servers via ssh (and even that has "ClamAV" antivirus running). So I'm just using it as an expensive terminal/chromebook.
- sahil-kang 8y ago
  It sounds like we might work together; the only difference is that I do most of my dev work on my MBP so I consider it an expensive Linux machine instead of a chromebook :)
- 52-6F-62 8y ago
  Haha I just made another comment to a similar effect. We had McAfee but I stripped it out because it was just so terrible. We also have the Forcepoint nonsense.
rgacote 8y ago
> and no one runs antivirus on Mac, ever. Work at small company. Have Eset NOD32 on all Macs. It is possible to install non-signed software (I sometimes install development tools from small companies who do not have signing cert, if I'm comfortable with their reputation). It's also possible something could sneak through in a PDF, Word Doc, homebrew/ports install, etc.
opportune 8y ago
Being individually targeted is a possibility if you work for a high-profile or important software company Additionally, not sure about you, but the reason I like to develop on macs is due to the fact that I can test nix software on them. That means I am installing and running nix binaries either via browser or through package managers such as pip. There is absolutely a non-zero risk that Linux malware will somehow find its way into my development environment. I am not trying to fear monger, as I do believe macs are still generally the safest, but don’t let them lull you into a false sense of security
dvdkon 8y ago
The privilege escalation vulnerabilities that have been found in Mac OS in the last few years have made me distrust its security. It's not like Apple can't create secure OSs (see iOS), they just don't seem to care nearly as much about macs. All the "security" changes (that I've seen) they've made have been implementing an iOS-esque walled garden with the premise being that trusting Apple is better for security (which is probably true, but I think many users will turn these limitations off as soon as they hit them). I used to really like Mac OS X, but nowadays it feels much less polished and much more annoying. It might just be nostalgia, but I remember Leopard being more responsive and having fewer pop-ups (Screw you, iCloud! I don't want to synchronise my files!).

__mifflin 8y ago

> and no one runs antivirus on the Mac, ever. Working at a large company (also not one of the famous silicon valley tech companies) and if you get a macbook, they are managed remotely and have BitDefender installed.

coder543 8y ago
I sometimes forget how much big companies enjoy spending money. I once worked for a large company where every developer was issued a full copy of Microsoft Office, even though most of them worked inside a fullscreen Linux VM all day. Outlook was the only piece of Office that my coworkers and I used, and I would have been happier using a tab open to a webmail provider inside the VM than having to use Outlook to connect to Exchange. That was far from the only unnecessary software they paid for. Why use Git when you can pay for Perforce!
- viraptor 8y ago
  > every developer was issued a full copy of Microsoft Office Enterprise volume licenses. It probably cost them less than the time/money they'd lose if you spenta few minutes trying to figure out how to open some file sent by non-devs.
- pjmlp 8y ago
  > Why use Git when you can pay for Perforce! Nice graphical tooling and sane developer experience.
  - Murk 8y ago
    I consider perforce "views" to be burdonsome and not so sane. The rest of the experience may be less jarring than git for many.
- golergka 8y ago
  If you're working in the game industry, and your repository includes a lot of huge binary files that are mergable, perfoce is a godsend. Also, p4merge is the best merging utility for any VCS, and I always install it alongside git if I work in Windows.
  - mariusmg 8y ago
    >p4merge is the best merging utility for any VCS What makes it "the best" ? Honest question, i found it kludgy and settled for Kdiff3.
  - shandor 8y ago
    p4merge is indeed awesome. I work exclusively in Linux environments, but p4merge always gets installed. The experience has actually gotten better in that regard since git started supporting it straight as one of its 'mergetools'.
- dagw 8y ago
  Why use Git when you can pay for Perforce! Perforce integrates very nicely with a whole bunch of third party tools in a way git does not, and is on the whole a lot easier to use for most people than git (and I'm saying this as someone who doesn't like Perforce at all)

pjmlp 8y ago

In many enterprises you are only allowed to connect laptops into the network if an anti-virus is present, that includes company issued Macs.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
petepete 8y ago
And this is why I used to have a laptop in my drawer I used for logging into the proper intranet, booking holidays and organising my pension. All my actual work was done on Unix/Unix-like machines on our own old network, something we clung on to after acquisition.
CathyWest 8y ago
I used to run John Norstad's Disinfectant in Classic Mode years ago. Of course it did nothing but, but it did get me on the network, and that's all that mattered. Plus, the about box was always fun to bring up.

em500 8y ago

> Macs do not allow running unsigned software by default, and no one runs antivirus on Mac, ever. My company-issued MBP is running something called "Cylance Protect" (and "TrendMicro" earlier). And also something called "Forecpoint DLP". I have no control over any of that, software just appears and disappears. I think it's done by something called "Jamf". I don't really care either way. The only thing I actually use on the Mac is Chrome for email/calendaring/vidconf and some intranet sites. Actual work is all on Linux servers via ssh (and even that has "ClamAV" antivirus running). So I'm just using it as an expensive terminal/chromebook.

sahil-kang 8y ago
It sounds like we might work together; the only difference is that I do most of my dev work on my MBP so I consider it an expensive Linux machine instead of a chromebook :)
52-6F-62 8y ago
Haha I just made another comment to a similar effect. We had McAfee but I stripped it out because it was just so terrible. We also have the Forcepoint nonsense.

rgacote 8y ago

> and no one runs antivirus on Mac, ever. Work at small company. Have Eset NOD32 on all Macs. It is possible to install non-signed software (I sometimes install development tools from small companies who do not have signing cert, if I'm comfortable with their reputation). It's also possible something could sneak through in a PDF, Word Doc, homebrew/ports install, etc.

opportune 8y ago

Being individually targeted is a possibility if you work for a high-profile or important software company Additionally, not sure about you, but the reason I like to develop on macs is due to the fact that I can test nix software on them. That means I am installing and running nix binaries either via browser or through package managers such as pip. There is absolutely a non-zero risk that Linux malware will somehow find its way into my development environment. I am not trying to fear monger, as I do believe macs are still generally the safest, but don’t let them lull you into a false sense of security

dvdkon 8y ago

The privilege escalation vulnerabilities that have been found in Mac OS in the last few years have made me distrust its security. It's not like Apple can't create secure OSs (see iOS), they just don't seem to care nearly as much about macs. All the "security" changes (that I've seen) they've made have been implementing an iOS-esque walled garden with the premise being that trusting Apple is better for security (which is probably true, but I think many users will turn these limitations off as soon as they hit them). I used to really like Mac OS X, but nowadays it feels much less polished and much more annoying. It might just be nostalgia, but I remember Leopard being more responsive and having fewer pop-ups (Screw you, iCloud! I don't want to synchronise my files!).