4 ms·

> As someone who works in the IT security industry, I absolutely agree with this statement. The former claim is impeached by the latter. > it sometimes take A

by nirvana 14y ago

> As someone who works in the IT security industry, I absolutely agree with this statement. The former claim is impeached by the latter. > it sometimes take Apple months to merely test it and ship it out. This is a dishonest characterization. I'd rather Apple continue to ship a robust and secure operating system, than to simply patch it every time someone releases an update that passes its regression tests, with the subsequent breakage of other packages and new security holes, none of which are caught by regression tests. >OS X was also very late, compared to Windows, in implementing in-depth defense mechanisms I really don't think 2001-2002 counts as "very late". >Apple's code review and testing processes must be very immature to let such a glaring vulnerability ship to customers Please explain to me why there are known security holes in windows that have existed for 15 years? >But I think Apple is slowly and finally understanding the importance of security in their software ecosystem... Damning with faint praise. Apple has taken this issue seriously since 1987. Microsoft makes too much money from being vulnerable to take it seriously. This is just more nonsense from apple bashers based on characterization... Great for clicks but it impeaches you as an engineer.

sliverstorm 14y ago
> I'd rather Apple continue to ship a robust and secure operating system That's the thing, how is it robust and secure if Apple takes months to release security updates for said open-source software? > I really don't think 2001-2002 counts as "very late". You misread his comment. He is saying OS X was not released with in-depth defense mechanisms. Thus its release date is of no consequence. > Apple has taken this issue seriously since 1987. Forgive me for my skepticism, but what security concerns, exactly, did Apple face in 1987? 1987 was in the middle of the emergence of word processors.
- nirvana 14y ago
  >You misread his comment. He is saying OS X was not released with in-depth defense mechanisms. Thus its release date is of no consequence. Really? 2001-2002 is when OS X got in depth defense mechanisms, thus the date is relevant-- it proves shows how full of it he is. So, I didn't misread the comment, I rebutted it by citing the date. >Forgive me for my skepticism, but what security concerns, exactly, did Apple face in 1987? 1987 was in the middle of the emergence of word processors. And the emergence of viruses. Where were a real problem on the Mac from 1987-1990. >That's the thing, how is it robust and secure if Apple takes months to release security updates for said open-source software? Because just shipping patches without testing them produces a brittle OS and opens them up to having security holes. I'm tired of these argument-from-ignorance claims that seem to be common on hacker news. If you're going to disagree with me, at least please take the time to read what I wrote and comprehend it and disagree with what I'm saying. Don't just dash off some response based on your lack of knowledge of history, and what I'm arguing.

by nirvana 14y ago

sliverstorm 14y ago

> I'd rather Apple continue to ship a robust and secure operating system That's the thing, how is it robust and secure if Apple takes months to release security updates for said open-source software? > I really don't think 2001-2002 counts as "very late". You misread his comment. He is saying OS X was not released with in-depth defense mechanisms. Thus its release date is of no consequence. > Apple has taken this issue seriously since 1987. Forgive me for my skepticism, but what security concerns, exactly, did Apple face in 1987? 1987 was in the middle of the emergence of word processors.

nirvana 14y ago
>You misread his comment. He is saying OS X was not released with in-depth defense mechanisms. Thus its release date is of no consequence. Really? 2001-2002 is when OS X got in depth defense mechanisms, thus the date is relevant-- it proves shows how full of it he is. So, I didn't misread the comment, I rebutted it by citing the date. >Forgive me for my skepticism, but what security concerns, exactly, did Apple face in 1987? 1987 was in the middle of the emergence of word processors. And the emergence of viruses. Where were a real problem on the Mac from 1987-1990. >That's the thing, how is it robust and secure if Apple takes months to release security updates for said open-source software? Because just shipping patches without testing them produces a brittle OS and opens them up to having security holes. I'm tired of these argument-from-ignorance claims that seem to be common on hacker news. If you're going to disagree with me, at least please take the time to read what I wrote and comprehend it and disagree with what I'm saying. Don't just dash off some response based on your lack of knowledge of history, and what I'm arguing.