Hahaha... quote on bash.org:

< robT> Name ONE thing that your windows comp can do that my MAC cant
< bawss> Right click.

Get the correct mouse and you can right click on a mac. I have done it.

---

[snip]
This is why the corporate world is far different from the consumer world, and why the server market cannot and should not be used as a representative sample of security in operating systems. The ball game is completely different when you have professionals involved. Most thieves stay away from people who look like they know how to handle a situation (even if looks can be deceiving).
[snip]
It also doesn't cost much to configure *nix on a server and leave it alone. As a specialized device, it's not required to do a whole lot, so it's easy to have as few active services on it as possible, reducing the attack surface.

Desktops need to be far more flexible, and therefore have far more installed on them, increasing their risk and attack surface. These are the primary target for any hacker who knows that most people won't notice their machine's cycles have been stolen until they've reaped hundreds if not thousands of dollars in money for having rented out their zombie machine to some unscrupulous dealer for a mass marketing email campaign.
[snip]

Indeed the corporate world is different, the point is that if there are *nix exploits in the corporate world, for the most part those same exploits can be taken advantage of in the consumer world. You made the point that *nix is not attacked because the percentage of systems with *nix is small compared to Windows, this is simply not true. The virus directed at jailbroken iPhones clearly demonstrates this. That *nix proponents claim that it is more secure than Windows is most likely a red rag to hackers, that there aren't reports of widespread security issues with *nix provides some indication that it's attack surface is substantially smaller that Windows'.

Please re-read what I typed again. I never said that *nix is not attacked. What I said was, if *nix is attacked, it won't ever show up on the news by name. It'll come up as "company loses data due to hacking". I have to believe that given the fact that any hacker who is determined will get into any system regardless of operating system, that *nix has already been hacked but it doesn't get nearly as much attention. Nothing will keep a determined hacker out.

I will, however, agree that *nix's attack "surface" is smaller than Windows Server simply because Microsoft's older server operating systems left a lot open in order to be easier and "friendly". *nix, on the other hand, defaults to a lot of things closed and you have to manually open them, thus reducing the attack surface. A point of note though, is that Windows Server 2008 has taken security seriously, and Microsoft has tightened down the hatches as hard as they did with Windows Vista and Windows 7. Particularly safe is when you use the "core" modes of Windows Server 2008 which relegates the server to a specific role, with only that role's ports open.

If anything, *nix being hacked is savored to only the best of the best hackers. These are not your typical script kiddies or spam kings. The ones getting past *nix's security are the serious industrial espionage or worse type of computer crimes.

Oh my bad it was somebody else that wrote:

Again, no one cares to write malware for a platform that has less than 5% of the market, especially one dominated by geeks alone (and the few non-techies that were convinced to switch under the premise of no viruses get the false sense of security by proxy).

I think I'm quoting OzzFan, and that's not you, right?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

[snip]
This is why the corporate world is far different from the consumer world, and why the server market cannot and should not be used as a representative sample of security in operating systems. The ball game is completely different when you have professionals involved. Most thieves stay away from people who look like they know how to handle a situation (even if looks can be deceiving).
[snip]
It also doesn't cost much to configure *nix on a server and leave it alone. As a specialized device, it's not required to do a whole lot, so it's easy to have as few active services on it as possible, reducing the attack surface.

Desktops need to be far more flexible, and therefore have far more installed on them, increasing their risk and attack surface. These are the primary target for any hacker who knows that most people won't notice their machine's cycles have been stolen until they've reaped hundreds if not thousands of dollars in money for having rented out their zombie machine to some unscrupulous dealer for a mass marketing email campaign.
[snip]

Indeed the corporate world is different, the point is that if there are *nix exploits in the corporate world, for the most part those same exploits can be taken advantage of in the consumer world. You made the point that *nix is not attacked because the percentage of systems with *nix is small compared to Windows, this is simply not true. The virus directed at jailbroken iPhones clearly demonstrates this. That *nix proponents claim that it is more secure than Windows is most likely a red rag to hackers, that there aren't reports of widespread security issues with *nix provides some indication that it's attack surface is substantially smaller that Windows'.

Please re-read what I typed again. I never said that *nix is not attacked. What I said was, if *nix is attacked, it won't ever show up on the news by name. It'll come up as "company loses data due to hacking". I have to believe that given the fact that any hacker who is determined will get into any system regardless of operating system, that *nix has already been hacked but it doesn't get nearly as much attention. Nothing will keep a determined hacker out.

I will, however, agree that *nix's attack "surface" is smaller than Windows Server simply because Microsoft's older server operating systems left a lot open in order to be easier and "friendly". *nix, on the other hand, defaults to a lot of things closed and you have to manually open them, thus reducing the attack surface. A point of note though, is that Windows Server 2008 has taken security seriously, and Microsoft has tightened down the hatches as hard as they did with Windows Vista and Windows 7. Particularly safe is when you use the "core" modes of Windows Server 2008 which relegates the server to a specific role, with only that role's ports open.

If anything, *nix being hacked is savored to only the best of the best hackers. These are not your typical script kiddies or spam kings. The ones getting past *nix's security are the serious industrial espionage or worse type of computer crimes.

Oh my bad it was somebody else that wrote:

Again, no one cares to write malware for a platform that has less than 5% of the market, especially one dominated by geeks alone (and the few non-techies that were convinced to switch under the premise of no viruses get the false sense of security by proxy).

I think I'm quoting OzzFan, and that's not you, right?

Yes, your bad. In that quote I said malware. Not all hacking is in the form of malware, and neither are security breaches.

---

Hahaha... quote on bash.org:

< robT> Name ONE thing that your windows comp can do that my MAC cant
< bawss> Right click.

Run Framemaker.
Also applies to 'nix, except for one trial version, which has been abandoned.

Hahaha... quote on bash.org:

< robT> Name ONE thing that your windows comp can do that my MAC cant
< bawss> Right click.

Run Framemaker.
Also applies to 'nix, except for one trial version, which has been abandoned.

I use PageStream for that type of work, but if you must, MACs support windows so you can run all your windows software.

---

[snip]
Oh my bad it was somebody else that wrote:

Again, no one cares to write malware for a platform that has less than 5% of the market, especially one dominated by geeks alone (and the few non-techies that were convinced to switch under the premise of no viruses get the false sense of security by proxy).

I think I'm quoting OzzFan, and that's not you, right?

Yes, your bad. In that quote I said malware. Not all hacking is in the form of malware, and neither are security breaches.

You're right, it is my bad, my first post to this thread was about your comment about malware attacking a platform that has less than 5% of the market. Further posts went on to show not only there are folks that write malware that targets business software but also devices that have < 5% of a market. Unfortunately, while I was trying to keep to the subject of my first post here, I didn't make that crystal clear, so I'll rephrase:

You made the point that *nix is not attacked with malware because the percentage of systems with *nix is small compared to Windows, this is simply not true.

Better?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

You made the point that *nix is not attacked with malware because the percentage of systems with *nix is small compared to Windows, this is simply not true.

Better?

Yes, it is still your bad because I have yet to see an argument that proves it's "simply not true".

Your argument is that since there is/was malware for a device that allegedly has less than 5% of the market, of which the only example that I can recall you mentioning is the iPhone (jailbroken ones at that), further of which the iPhone has a larger than 5% market penetration, not to mention the sheer popularity of the device itself leads to attention by hackers. I'm sure other examples can be conjured that show malware has been written for other small market segments, but they would only indicate that writers are looking for other markets to expand into, yet keep coming back to the one that makes them the most money, i.e. the larger market (i.e. popularity). The only real market for writing malware for *nix is the server market since there's a larger proportion of servers running *nix than consumers. Since servers are run by IT Pros, there's a far higher chance that the malware will be taken care of immediately, netting the writers very little returns for their efforts, so why bother?

All of that was supposed to illustrate that since hackers do focus on other markets, and given the lack of malware for *nix, that you would like to conclude it can't be done does not follow.

Unfortunately, since my first reply to you, I have tried to explain why I focus the discussion on consumers, but you have veered the conversation your way since your first post despite that I have already explained why businesses are a far different market altogether. It's a market that does indeed get attacked, but typically for different reasons. The consumer market is "where it's at", and the more popular a consumer OS becomes, the more hackers will find ways to take advantage of it's code, because any determined hacker will get through any system regardless of the OS used. Just like you'll never get rid of crime altogether, you'll never get rid of hackers and the havok they bring with them to the computer industry. I will agree that it can be made harder on them through making the OS more secure, but you'll never completely eradicate the problems.

Now that we recapped the entire discussion we had, is there confusion about anything else I said?

---

You made the point that *nix is not attacked with malware because the percentage of systems with *nix is small compared to Windows, this is simply not true.

Better?

Yes, it is still your bad because I have yet to see an argument that proves it's "simply not true".

Your argument is that since there is/was malware for a device that allegedly has less than 5% of the market, of which the only example that I can recall you mentioning is the iPhone (jailbroken ones at that), further of which the iPhone has a larger than 5% market penetration, not to mention the sheer popularity of the device itself leads to attention by hackers.

True the iPhone likely has a larger than 5% share of the cell phone market, but the malware I mentioned only attacks those that are jailbroken, which, in all likelihood, is less than 5% of iPhones and significantly less than 5% of the cell phone market as a whole. While MS SQL Server has about 10% of the RDBMS market it's likely installed on less than 5% of all machines with a Windows OS, malware was designed to and succeeded in attacking that for all the monitoring of various administrators.

I'm sure other examples can be conjured that show malware has been written for other small market segments, but they would only indicate that writers are looking for other markets to expand into, yet keep coming back to the one that makes them the most money, i.e. the larger market (i.e. popularity). The only real market for writing malware for *nix is the server market since there's a larger proportion of servers running *nix than consumers. Since servers are run by IT Pros, there's a far higher chance that the malware will be taken care of immediately, netting the writers very little returns for their efforts, so why bother?

All of that was supposed to illustrate that since hackers do focus on other markets, and given the lack of malware for *nix, that you would like to conclude it can't be done does not follow.

Now who's putting words in other people's mouths? I never said malware couldn't be written for *nix. I did say that it would be reasonable to assume that if malware could be written for *nix chances are that it would be, you agreed to this. So, where is that malware?

Unfortunately, since my first reply to you, I have tried to explain why I focus the discussion on consumers, but you have veered the conversation your way since your first post despite that I have already explained why businesses are a far different market altogether. It's a market that does indeed get attacked, but typically for different reasons. The consumer market is "where it's at", and the more popular a consumer OS becomes, the more hackers will find ways to take advantage of it's code, because any determined hacker will get through any system regardless of the OS used. Just like you'll never get rid of crime altogether, you'll never get rid of hackers and the havok they bring with them to the computer industry. I will agree that it can be made harder on them through making the OS more secure, but you'll never completely eradicate the problems.

Now that we recapped the entire discussion we had, is there confusion about anything else I said?

No confusion, you say that the writers of malware won't attack systems which do not have dominant share of market, and that's the reason none has been written for *nix. I'm sure there are more examples I could find demonstrating malware written for small market segments, but why should I bother? I have already provided 2 clear examples where this is not the case and haven't seen any showing that malware has been written to target *nix. There are probably 100,000's of desktops with *nix on them today (and probably more, given that it has about 4% of the desktop market), why would the writers of malware not target, when they already attack smaller segments?

Just to show I'm not confused, you're effectively saying "*nix as a desktop OS is not attacked by malware cos it's market share is too small" (regardless of the jailbroken iPhones example)and "*nix is not attacked by malware as a server OS because the rewards of attacking servers are not significant enough" (regardless of the MS SQL Server example). Right? I have to ask though, if both are true why would anybody not choose *nix if they didn't want to be attacked by malware?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Nothing will keep a determined hacker out.

1) Running no services will keep a hacker out. (Java, active x, etc. are services in this respect.)
2) Having a very small pipe will keep one out. He won't be able to do enough probes before the system gets replaced.

I will, however, agree that *nix's attack "surface" is smaller than Windows Server simply because Microsoft's older server operating systems left a lot open in order to be easier and "friendly". *nix, on the other hand, defaults to a lot of things closed and you have to manually open them, thus reducing the attack surface. A point of note though, is that Windows Server 2008 has taken security seriously, and Microsoft has tightened down the hatches as hard as they did with Windows Vista and Windows 7. Particularly safe is when you use the "core" modes of Windows Server 2008 which relegates the server to a specific role, with only that role's ports open.

Its area is a bit smaller yet because not all flavors operate the same internally. While the exploit bug may be present in several flavors the exploit payload may need to be tailored to each flavor or may not work at all on some flavors.

And this is being generous to the break in side. Apache, FTP, Finger, NTP, Telnet, SSH, etc. are not actually part of the O/S, they are separate 3rd party applications even though they usually are included in the distro's. Actual hacks on the O/S itself are vanishingly rare.

If anything, *nix being hacked is savored to only the best of the best hackers. These are not your typical script kiddies or spam kings. The ones getting past *nix's security are the serious industrial espionage or worse type of computer crimes.

Not 100% true. Scrip kiddies will still run the scripts, but they only get in if the owner didn't apply the patches or change the defaults.

I know one scrip kiddie got PO'd at my Mac. His dictionary attack just got him a pile of connect refused messages back so he did a six hour DOS attack on my machine in frustration because I used a secure lock.

---

I never said malware couldn't be written for *nix. I did say that it would be reasonable to assume that if malware could be written for *nix chances are that it would be, you agreed to this. So, where is that malware?

You're not saying that malware couldn't be written for *nix. You did say that it's reasonable to assume that if malware could be written for *nix, chances are that it would be, and I agreed to this. So, where is that malware?

Pardon me if that sounds a lot like you're saying that because I have no examples of malware existing, that it doesn't exist, which I never argued with. I'm not certain where the disagreement is. What am I suppose to be answering? That I agree there's no malware for it at the moment?

I emphasized the if's, could's, and would's to illustrate how your words certainly seem like you're suggesting that due to my lack of proof of malware, combined with your argument that hackers do write malware for small markets, that it simply isn't possible ("if it could happen, then why doesn't it exist?" is what I am reading). If you're not saying that, then why keep asking the same question over that which we already agreed upon?

No confusion, you say that the writers of malware won't attack systems which do not have dominant share of market, and that's the reason none has been written for *nix. I'm sure there are more examples I could find demonstrating malware written for small market segments, but why should I bother? I have already provided 2 clear examples where this is not the case and haven't seen any showing that malware has been written to target *nix. There are probably 100,000's of desktops with *nix on them today (and probably more, given that it has about 4% of the desktop market), why would the writers of malware not target, when they already attack smaller segments?

The examples you've given have shown value in disruption. Obviously, no value has been found for disruption in *nix. Why is that? Because it's not technically possible to do so?

I have to ask though, if both are true why would anybody not choose *nix if they didn't want to be attacked by malware?

If your only focus of running an OS is avoiding malware (which is a good goal), and you've got the skills and time to spend figuring out Linux, then there's no good reason not to choose Linux. If you do, that's great news for you. Meanwhile, everyone else is too busy with their lives to learn something as complex as *nix.

---

Nothing will keep a determined hacker out.

1) Running no services will keep a hacker out. (Java, active x, etc. are services in this respect.)
2) Having a very small pipe will keep one out. He won't be able to do enough probes before the system gets replaced.

There is more to hacking than external attacks. A specially tailored script or malicious program sneakily installed on your system can still do the job. As I said, nothing will keep a determined hacker out.

If anything, *nix being hacked is savored to only the best of the best hackers. These are not your typical script kiddies or spam kings. The ones getting past *nix's security are the serious industrial espionage or worse type of computer crimes.

Not 100% true. Scrip kiddies will still run the scripts, but they only get in if the owner didn't apply the patches or change the defaults.

I thought that much would be too obvious for words.

---

Nothing will keep a determined hacker out.

1) Running no services will keep a hacker out. (Java, active x, etc. are services in this respect.)
2) Having a very small pipe will keep one out. He won't be able to do enough probes before the system gets replaced.

There is more to hacking than external attacks. A specially tailored script or malicious program sneakily installed on your system can still do the job. As I said, nothing will keep a determined hacker out.

You did understand that it is hard to run a script if there isn't a scripting interpreter installed on the target machine.

Picking locks, they physical kind, isn't hacking.

---

... That's great for you. You're a very intelligent individual who has enough brains to figure out how to run *nix as an everyday OS. I'm afraid this isn't the case for countless other people I run into. I don't mean that as an insult to those people, simply that they don't care to deal with Linux's hassles (if you at least care to admit it has them, unlike other Linux afficionados).

Trying that sort of argument, the *nix "afficionados" can equally claim that Microsoft Windows very badly lets people down with all the virus/malware problems and the various other reliability and usability problems and 'obfuscation' problems that most users suffer with Windows. You as an "expert" can quickly forget that a lot of people even find menu navigation difficult... Most people have no idea as to how the parts fit together or what connects to what.

[Edit] I am an IT Admin myself, I have been using computers for 20 years as well, and I constantly find myself frustrated with all the hype attributed to Linux, as my expectations have not been met with reality. I find many of the arguments given by Linux afficionadoes for switching from Windows are often over-exaggerated or somehow disillusioned at best.

I was very sceptical at first when I moved over to Linux from having done a lot of Windows development. At the time, my frustration with Windows were:

1: (minor annoyance) that the Microsoft Visual C++ "MS Foundation Classes" were nothing to do with an object oriented design approach and were merely very non-portable C++ wrappers to the underlying OS API;

2: (killer problem) WinXP was still not a truly multitasking OS for trying to run multithreaded applications... or rather, one rogue process would kill the entire system!

I tried linux for a test development. Whenever I took a look deeper into the system or the code, I was always very pleased and pleasantly surprised at how tidy and thorough the code was that I found.

Note: That in NO WAY implies linux is 'perfect'.

If you are an 'expert', you should find the linux workings 'under the hood' to be a pleasant surprise.

It also works very well for those that just want to use it.


Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Nothing will keep a determined hacker out.

1) Running no services will keep a hacker out. (Java, active x, etc. are services in this respect.)
2) Having a very small pipe will keep one out. He won't be able to do enough probes before the system gets replaced.

There is more to hacking than external attacks. A specially tailored script or malicious program sneakily installed on your system can still do the job. As I said, nothing will keep a determined hacker out.

You did understand that it is hard to run a script if there isn't a scripting interpreter installed on the target machine.

I also said a specially written program. A program can be written for any OS to do nearly anything the writer wants. Thus, if this program had malicious intent, it would technically classify as malware, but it wouldn't be "in the wild".

Picking locks, they physical kind, isn't hacking.

What is hacking? We often associate it with computer crime. The terms "hack" and "hacking" are also used to refer to a modification of a program or device to give the user access to features that were otherwise unavailable. This can be applied broadly, if you will, to include a lock as a "device", wherein a criminal picks the lock to give them access to features (your house) that were otherwise unavailable. Of course, we wouldn't call a common criminal a hacker, but the term can be used broadly, which is how I was using it.

---

Trying that sort of argument, the *nix "afficionados" can equally claim that Microsoft Windows very badly lets people down with all the virus/malware problems and the various other reliability and usability problems and 'obfuscation' problems that most users suffer with Windows. You as an "expert" can quickly forget that a lot of people even find menu navigation difficult... Most people have no idea as to how the parts fit together or what connects to what.

Isn't that the crux of the issue here? Differing views. Of course *nix afficionadoes can make valid claims against Windows, and the easy claim is the whole virus/malware thing, along with BSODs. The real question that each person has to ask themselves is, "Is it really frustrating enough that I want to find something else?" The answer is different for each of us. Those who have chosen to "find" something else and came upon Linux might very well be happy, depending on their determination learning the system.

As you said, many users find menu navigation difficult, or have no idea how the parts fit together. You also admit in your post that Linux isn't "perfect", so it's equally probable that someone's experience with Linux isn't going to be that great, or worse than it was when using Windows and it's problems.

I was very sceptical at first when I moved over to Linux from having done a lot of Windows development. At the time, my frustration with Windows were: <snip>

If you are an 'expert', you should find the linux workings 'under the hood' to be a pleasant surprise.

I don't like it when you add that qualifier. That if you are an expert, you should find the Linux workings "under the hood" to be pleasant. What if I'm an expert that doesn't find them pleasant? Is that not possible at all? Merely stating this is enough to cause Linux afficionados to immediately claim "PEBKEC" error and begin telling you what you did wrong and why it is better. But again, it's perspective. Whether the user did or didn't do something right is irrelevant. It's the level of expectation of the experience, and with Linux gurus setting the bar far too high, it can be easy to be disappointed. The fact that the hype doesn't seem to meet the experience is the problem, so either the bar needs to be not set so high, or a lot of programming needs to be done to meet the hype.

If I had more time, I'd love to share an experience I saw an "average" family have back in 1996 when they first began to use their brand new Macintosh computer, and their level of frustration, misinformation, confusion and just plain bewilderment of the platform did not make for a better experience, but they stuck with it simply because their "geek in the family" told them it was better, and that this is what they needed.

It also works very well for those that just want to use it.

I'm sorry, but that just hasn't been my experience. The larger problem is that I have not had the frustrations with Windows to make me want to "find a better way". I barely run into any malware, and those I have are easily removed. I don't have issues with tons of spam. My Windows Servers have not been hacked that I know of, and I monitor them very closely. I'm very happy and I don't see a need to change. I do keep checking the other side, as I said previously (and with an open mind), but I still feel frustrated and annoyed when I use Linux.

---

Isn't that the crux of the issue here? Differing views. Of course *nix afficionadoes can make valid claims against Windows, and the easy claim is the whole virus/malware thing, along with BSODs. The real question that each person has to ask themselves is, "Is it really frustrating enough that I want to find something else?" The answer is different for each of us. Those who have chosen to "find" something else and came upon Linux might very well be happy, depending on their determination learning the system.

Which is where Microsoft has been very successful in building a very harsh "lock-in" regime using every "proprietary" trick possible that for some (most?) examples locks people where they remain profitable for Microsoft. It's not always just a question of whether people are 'frustrated enough' and would like to try something else. It can also be a question of whether you (know that you) can take your data with you, and the many hours of work that has gone into creating that data.

Usually, there are "ways around" the proprietary lock-in. The problem (and profit for Microsoft) is that the "lock-in" can present a barrier that permanently traps the "casual user".

... I don't like it when you add that qualifier. That if you are an expert, you should find the Linux workings "under the hood" to be pleasant. What if I'm an expert that doesn't find them pleasant?...

Then that is your opinion as a reflection of your experience and background.

... The larger problem is that I have not had the frustrations with Windows to make me want to "find a better way". I barely run into any malware, and those I have are easily removed. I don't have issues with tons of spam. My Windows Servers have not been hacked that I know of, and I monitor them very closely. I'm very happy and I don't see a need to change. I do keep checking the other side, as I said previously (and with an open mind), but I still feel frustrated and annoyed when I use Linux.

Then that appears to be a fair comment for your experience. That experience should be noted for your comments for what you claim is the world's 'best' OS in whatever way. There is the rest of the world also, and many other OSes.

Note that I have never claimed Linux to be the 'best' OS in the world... It does have significant advantages for my daily use and for what I use computers for.


I think we've already thrashed to death the issues of feature sets and malware and internet pollution from zombied machines...

Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

I never said malware couldn't be written for *nix. I did say that it would be reasonable to assume that if malware could be written for *nix chances are that it would be, you agreed to this. So, where is that malware?

You're not saying that malware couldn't be written for *nix. You did say that it's reasonable to assume that if malware could be written for *nix, chances are that it would be, and I agreed to this. So, where is that malware?

Pardon me if that sounds a lot like you're saying that because I have no examples of malware existing, that it doesn't exist, which I never argued with. I'm not certain where the disagreement is. What am I suppose to be answering? That I agree there's no malware for it at the moment?

I emphasized the if's, could's, and would's to illustrate how your words certainly seem like you're suggesting that due to my lack of proof of malware, combined with your argument that hackers do write malware for small markets, that it simply isn't possible ("if it could happen, then why doesn't it exist?" is what I am reading). If you're not saying that, then why keep asking the same question over that which we already agreed upon?

Why restate? You said:

All of that was supposed to illustrate that since hackers do focus on other markets, and given the lack of malware for *nix, that you would like to conclude it can't be done does not follow.

And I don't think I ever said what I'd like to conclude. Earlier in this thread I restated something because I over simplified something you had said, and in this case I felt you were oversimplifying my thoughts. If I were to conclude anything by the lack of malware currently targeting *nix, it's that it's difficult to write such malware compared to some other platforms, notably Windows. The jailboken iPhone example provides some support for such a conclusion, as in that case the malware uses a very simple technique, being based upon users failing to change a default password. I suspect that it's more to do with comparative complexity of writing malware, than the comparative popularity of any particular platform, that drives the development of malware, you appear to argue that the reverse is true.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Picking locks, they physical kind, isn't hacking.

What is hacking? We often associate it with computer crime. The terms "hack" and "hacking" are also used to refer to a modification of a program or device to give the user access to features that were otherwise unavailable. This can be applied broadly, if you will, to include a lock as a "device", wherein a criminal picks the lock to give them access to features (your house) that were otherwise unavailable. Of course, we wouldn't call a common criminal a hacker, but the term can be used broadly, which is how I was using it.

How about this, if the crime existed before computers did it isn't hacking. Like picking a lock, Breaking and Entering or Burglary. Or pretexting, Fraud.

In any case "hacking" has many more meanings than just computer crime, but we aren't talking about taxicabs or bricks. Not included below about computer programs is a quick sloppy program that barely gets the job done. e.g. Windows ME.

hack 1 |hak|
verb
1 [ trans. ] cut with rough or heavy blows : hack off the dead branches | [ intrans. ] a fishmonger hacked at it with a cleaver.
2 [ intrans. ] use a computer to gain unauthorized access to data in a system : they hacked into a bank's computer.
• [ trans. ] gain unauthorized access to (data in a computer) : hacking private information from computers.
3 [usu. with negative ] ( hack it) informal manage; cope : lots of people leave because they can't hack it.
noun
1 a rough cut, blow, or stroke : he was sure one of us was going to take a hack at him.
• (in sports) a kick or hit inflicted on another player.
• a cut or gash.
• a tool for rough striking or cutting, e.g., a mattock or a miner's pick.
2 informal an act of computer hacking.
• a piece of computer code that performs some function, esp. an unofficial alternative or addition to a commercial program : freeware and shareware hacks.
PHRASES
hacking cough a short, dry, frequent cough.
PHRASAL VERBS
hack around pass one's time idly or with no definite purpose.
hack someone off informal annoy or infuriate someone.
ORIGIN Old English haccian [cut in pieces] ; related to Dutch hakken and German hacken.
hack 2 |høk| |hak|
noun
1 a writer or journalist producing dull, unoriginal work : [as adj. ] a hack scriptwriter.
• a person who does dull routine work.
2 a horse for ordinary riding.
• a good-quality lightweight riding horse, esp. one used in the show ring.
• a ride on a horse.
• an inferior or worn-out horse.
• a horse rented out for riding.
3 a taxicab.
verb [ intrans. ] [usu. as n. ] ( hacking)
ride a horse for pleasure or exercise.
DERIVATIVES
hackery |ˈhakərē| |ˈhøkəri| noun (in sense 1)
ORIGIN Middle English (sense 2) : abbreviation of hackney . Sense 1 dates from the late 17th cent.
hack 3 |høk| |hak|
noun
1 Falconry a board on which a hawk's meat is laid.
2 a wooden frame for drying bricks, cheeses, etc.
• a pile of bricks stacked up to dry before firing.
PHRASES
at hack (of a young hawk) given partial liberty but not yet allowed to hunt for itself.
ORIGIN late Middle English (denoting the lower half of a divided door): variant of hatch 1 .

---

Focusing back onto Apple:

Steve Jobs says Adobe is Lazy and Google is Evil

Or... Should that be rephrased as "How to steer the Market"?


Moving away from Adobe domination instead to an open web standard can only be a good thing for the end users. However, I hope that we don't get yet more intrusive web-bloat that slows down page loading and page viewing yet further into the quagmire of bloat...

Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

QuagmireOfBloat...

---