3 ms·

"What are his actual arguments?" Here's one: http://daringfireball.net/2004/06/broken_windows http://daringfireball.net/2004/06/broken_windows Mac community ha

by Steko 15y ago

"What are his actual arguments?" Here's one: http://daringfireball.net/2004/06/broken_windows http://daringfireball.net/2004/06/broken_windows Mac community has no tolerance. Here's another: http://daringfireball.net/2006/11/jackass_larry_seltzer http://daringfireball.net/2006/11/jackass_larry_seltzer Fundamentally more secure. Overall I just think he has more confidence in Apple's drive to deliver ease of use consumer experiences. As he recently recently hinted: "So, for the sake of argument, let’s take it as a given that this sort of thing is becoming more common. What can Apple do? Think about it. (My guess: think about why the iPhone and iPad, despite being far more popular than the Mac, have no trojan horses.)" Obviously he's thinking that Apple could, if security becomes an issue, offer clueless users a mode where app execution is limited to signed Mac App Store installs or something.

joebadmo 15y ago
Thanks, that's what I was looking for. I guess I haven't really been following Gruber long enough to have been exposed to those arguments, and he doesn't really seem to have linked back to them (they are pretty old). That said, I'm not sure I follow his arguments. The first one seems to be that the Mac community is less tolerant of malware/crapware. But as the market expands, especially to former Windows users, doesn't this become less true by definition? It's an explanation for why there hasn't been much malware on Macs, but not really one for why there couldn't or won't be. The second was isn't an argument so much as an assertion. Though this might be a case again of me not being familiar enough with his writing historically and his audience. Maybe he's speaking from the assumption that his audience understands technical details about Mac OS architecture/design that makes this true? You're right, though, it does indeed seem like Mac App Store exclusivity is where Apple is headed. And that does seem likely to make the OS fundamentally more secure than others, mostly reducing potential exploits to third party app/web.
- Steko 15y ago
  I think historically it WAS more secure. See Pogue's write up from 2003: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/18/technology/circuits/18POGUE-EMAIL.html?ex=1214280000&en=1efe03e6ab949440&ei=5070 http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/18/technology/circuits/18POGU... As time has gone on MS has made strides in the default shipping copies of Windows. SP3, Vista, WP7. I'm not sure if they're better the same or worse today compared to OSX (or linux) but I'd agree historically Windows was a total mess -- we'd have entire days of downtime to viruses as they took over the company. haven't seen one of those in years though.

by Steko 15y ago

joebadmo 15y ago

Thanks, that's what I was looking for. I guess I haven't really been following Gruber long enough to have been exposed to those arguments, and he doesn't really seem to have linked back to them (they are pretty old). That said, I'm not sure I follow his arguments. The first one seems to be that the Mac community is less tolerant of malware/crapware. But as the market expands, especially to former Windows users, doesn't this become less true by definition? It's an explanation for why there hasn't been much malware on Macs, but not really one for why there couldn't or won't be. The second was isn't an argument so much as an assertion. Though this might be a case again of me not being familiar enough with his writing historically and his audience. Maybe he's speaking from the assumption that his audience understands technical details about Mac OS architecture/design that makes this true? You're right, though, it does indeed seem like Mac App Store exclusivity is where Apple is headed. And that does seem likely to make the OS fundamentally more secure than others, mostly reducing potential exploits to third party app/web.

Steko 15y ago
I think historically it WAS more secure. See Pogue's write up from 2003: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/18/technology/circuits/18POGUE-EMAIL.html?ex=1214280000&en=1efe03e6ab949440&ei=5070 http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/18/technology/circuits/18POGU... As time has gone on MS has made strides in the default shipping copies of Windows. SP3, Vista, WP7. I'm not sure if they're better the same or worse today compared to OSX (or linux) but I'd agree historically Windows was a total mess -- we'd have entire days of downtime to viruses as they took over the company. haven't seen one of those in years though.