I have to share this

[nebulos]

in fact, i love to argue. and people say so many stupid things on either side of this argument the topic is oh-so ripe for the picking.

but what is the point?

why don't you guys argue republican vs democrat instead? or religion vs atheism?

i could just as well dive in and start yelling my opinions too. or i could stand back and say how stupid and pointless i find these arguments. i am free to choose how to contribute.

you guys are having fun being snarky to those on the other side. i figured out a way to do it to all of you at once.

... and, admittedly, i guess i've had a bad day.

in any case, it's meant in good fun. i know i can't shut you guys up. unfortunately, you can't shut me up either. sorry.

 

[GGJstudios]

Noo, the insult.

There was no insult. I simply stated a fact.

I find it beculiar that you would add "into the wild", because that's not where we are coming from. - And how would you know?

You apparently have not read the link I suggested, or you would know what "in the wild" means and how I would know that none exist.

Self-replicates, what does that even mean,

Read the link and educate yourself.

Saying that there are "NO viruses for Mac OS X" has another very misleading meaning, i.e. it could lead people to believe that the system is invulnerable, which again could lead them to discard their awareness and common sense.

Read the link and my posts. You will find no such inference or suggestion. In fact, you will find the opposite.

it's not going to happen unless someone can mention a virus that has been created for mac os x.

That's the bottom line. Name one and you disprove the statement that no Mac OS X viruses exist in the wild. Since you can't, the statement stands true.

I'll just go back to my feeling good about myself for not stooping to the level of insulting you

I have never insulted you.

edit*:
http://www.symantec.com/security_response/writeup.jsp?docid=2006-110217-1331-99
Now at least we're done for good.

Not quite. Did you just post the link without reading it?

OSX.Macarena is a proof of concept virus

That means it has not been released into the wild. You continue to show that you haven't read or understood the Mac Virus/Malware link I've posted, to educate yourself on malware. Your posts suggest that you don't understand the difference between a virus and a trojan or the difference between proof-of-concept or in the wild. Until you read and learn, your arguments are going to be ineffective.

Symantec acknowledged to MacFixIt:
Also, as has been the case with virtually all purported Mac OS X viruses documented by anti-virus firms thus far, there is no reliable vector for the spread of OSX.Macarena, meaning that a user would have to locate the source file, download it, compile the source and run the virus in order for any effect to occur.
As a result of these considerations, the OSX.Macarena has served less as a "warning shot" across the bow of Mac OS X than as a re-iteration of just how difficult it is to write an effective virus for the operating system.

How do I delete this post?

To delete any post, click the Report Post icon

and ask that a moderator delete the post. Or you can contribute to MR Forums and have the ability to delete your own posts.

the ones that wrongly say that Mac hardware is different to PC hardware and that there does not exist any viruses for the mac os.

They're not wrong in saying there are no Mac OS X viruses in the wild, because there aren't. That is a fact that you, like many others before you, have failed to disprove.

Rather than continue this discussion, which has grown tedious do to your lack of understanding the facts and apparent unwillingness to read the information that has been offered, I'll leave it with this: Why would I say in so many of these threads that no Mac OS X viruses exist in the wild, if it weren't true? If one did exist, many others in the forum would be quick to name it and disprove me. I have no motivation to lie, because doing so would only serve to humiliate and embarrass me. The fact is, it's true.

I have no doubt that it's possible that a virus could be introduced some time in the future. If that happens, I'll be among the first to acknowledge that and warn users. As I say in the link that you apparently refuse to read,

There are NO viruses in the wild that affect Mac OS X at this time. If this changes, I will update this post.

Like others in this forum who know the facts, I've had this debate dozens of times over the years, and not one person has ever proven the existence of a Mac OS X virus in the wild. Why do you think you'd be any different? Could a virus be created that affects Mac OS X? Yes! Has one been created and released into the wild? No! If that changes sometime in the future, I'll be alerting people to that fact. Until that time, I will continue to encourage Mac users to stay informed and to be cautious and careful in choosing what software they install.

 

[MBABuyer]

There was no insult. I simply stated a fact.

You apparently have not read the link I suggested, or you would know what "in the wild" means and how I would know that none exist.

Read the link and educate yourself.

Read the link and my posts. You will find no such inference or suggestion. In fact, you will find the opposite.

That's the bottom line. Name one and you disprove the statement that no Mac OS X viruses exist in the wild. Since you can't, the statement stands true.

I have never insulted you.

Not quite. Did you just post the link without reading it?

That means it has not been released into the wild. You continue to show that you haven't read or understood the Mac Virus/Malware link I've posted, to educate yourself on malware. Your posts suggest that you don't understand the difference between a virus and a trojan or the difference between proof-of-concept or in the wild. Until you read and learn, your arguments are going to be ineffective.


To delete any post, click the Report Post icon Image and ask that a moderator delete the post. Or you can contribute to MR Forums and have the ability to delete your own posts.

They're not wrong in saying there are no Mac OS X viruses in the wild, because there aren't. That is a fact that you, like many others before you, have failed to disprove.

Rather than continue this discussion, which has grown tedious do to your lack of understanding the facts and apparent unwillingness to read the information that has been offered, I'll leave it with this: Why would I say in so many of these threads that no Mac OS X viruses exist in the wild, if it weren't true? If one did exist, many others in the forum would be quick to name it and disprove me. I have no motivation to lie, because doing so would only serve to humiliate and embarrass me. The fact is, it's true.

I have no doubt that it's possible that a virus could be introduced some time in the future. If that happens, I'll be among the first to acknowledge that and warn users. As I say in the link that you apparently refuse to read,

Like others in this forum who know the facts, I've had this debate dozens of times over the years, and not one person has ever proven the existence of a Mac OS X virus in the wild. Why do you think you'd be any different? Could a virus be created that affects Mac OS X? Yes! Has one been created and released into the wild? No! If that changes sometime in the future, I'll be alerting people to that fact. Until that time, I will continue to encourage Mac users to stay informed and to be cautious and careful in choosing what software they install.

That must have taken some time to write....

 

[iRun26.2]

There was no insult. I simply stated a fact.

You apparently have not read the link I suggested, or you would know what "in the wild" means and how I would know that none exist.

Read the link and educate yourself.

Read the link and my posts. You will find no such inference or suggestion. In fact, you will find the opposite.

That's the bottom line. Name one and you disprove the statement that no Mac OS X viruses exist in the wild. Since you can't, the statement stands true.

I have never insulted you.

Not quite. Did you just post the link without reading it?

That means it has not been released into the wild. You continue to show that you haven't read or understood the Mac Virus/Malware link I've posted, to educate yourself on malware. Your posts suggest that you don't understand the difference between a virus and a trojan or the difference between proof-of-concept or in the wild. Until you read and learn, your arguments are going to be ineffective.


To delete any post, click the Report Post icon Image and ask that a moderator delete the post. Or you can contribute to MR Forums and have the ability to delete your own posts.

They're not wrong in saying there are no Mac OS X viruses in the wild, because there aren't. That is a fact that you, like many others before you, have failed to disprove.

Rather than continue this discussion, which has grown tedious do to your lack of understanding the facts and apparent unwillingness to read the information that has been offered, I'll leave it with this: Why would I say in so many of these threads that no Mac OS X viruses exist in the wild, if it weren't true? If one did exist, many others in the forum would be quick to name it and disprove me. I have no motivation to lie, because doing so would only serve to humiliate and embarrass me. The fact is, it's true.

I have no doubt that it's possible that a virus could be introduced some time in the future. If that happens, I'll be among the first to acknowledge that and warn users. As I say in the link that you apparently refuse to read,

Like others in this forum who know the facts, I've had this debate dozens of times over the years, and not one person has ever proven the existence of a Mac OS X virus in the wild. Why do you think you'd be any different? Could a virus be created that affects Mac OS X? Yes! Has one been created and released into the wild? No! If that changes sometime in the future, I'll be alerting people to that fact. Until that time, I will continue to encourage Mac users to stay informed and to be cautious and careful in choosing what software they install.

You may have inspired him to create the first one...

 

[GGJstudios]

You may have inspired him to create the first one...

He'll have to learn what one is before he can create one.

 

[PraisiX-windows]

He'll have to learn what one is before he can create one.

.. GGJ, you win the argument, I and the other readers get peace.

I have never been talking about "in the wild" it was something you added in later posts, it wasn't about you, I stated that several times, it was about people I would justify calling sheep.

You wasted an awfully lot of time writing that post as I didn't read it through.

It's pointless to debate this with you, I should have known this from the get go, you will not give in even AFTER I find a virus for you. - It's a proof of concept virus, which means, no it wasn't released into the wild (which was the modifier you added to make it look as if you won the argument), the only reason why it wasn't though was that the ones who made it did it to prove the concept, they could also have released it to the public, but anyway.

You will not give in, even though (to me) you have clearly lost, trying to defend the statement, that you had nothing to do with in the first place. However due to the funny way the brain works, it would probably not be possible for me to determine if I myself actually was the one who refused, at all costs, to give in to you.

About "iLovers"/"apple fanboys" being called sheep.

Usually, if at least used by a person with some sort of thinking mechanism still intact, I'd believe it refers to the guys, who I've met loads of, they're in a lot of apple vs microsoft discussion, that tell you all sort of things about OS X or mac that are false.

Like claiming that there are NO viruses, that the hardware is not pc hardware and all that, I'm sure you've heard it all yourselves.

This was the message you started the debate on, note that there is no "in the wild". - It couldn't be any more obvious (I mean, it probably could, but this is what you can get).

But Dolly, the discussion is over now, thank you.
Oh SNAP..

 

[GGJstudios]

I have never been talking about "in the wild" it was something you added in later posts

It's a proof of concept virus, which means, no it wasn't released into the wild (which was the modifier you added to make it look as if you won the argument),

I didn't add it later. From my very first post in this thread:

It is a fact that no viruses exist in the wild that can run on Mac OS X, and there never have been any, since it was released 10 years ago.

A proof-of-concept virus poses zero threat because the only way a Mac user can encounter it is to break into the lab where it exists in isolation and download it and execute it. Only "in the wild" malware matters, because that is the only malware that a Mac user will ever encounter. When people say "there are no Mac OS X viruses", they are correct, because they are referring to viruses that any Mac user would need to be concerned about. Only those with an agenda to argue will dig up some proof-of-concept that cannot possibly infect an average user's Mac, so they can argue the technicality. Until malware is released into the wild. it poses NO threat whatsoever to the 50+ million Macs out there.

 

[PraisiX-windows]

I didn't add it later. From my very first post in this thread:

A proof-of-concept virus poses zero threat because the only way a Mac user can encounter it is to break into the lab where it exists in isolation and download it and execute it. Only "in the wild" malware matters, because that is the only place where a Mac user can encounter such malware. When people say "there are no Mac OS X viruses", they are correct, because they are referring to viruses that any Mac user would need to be concerned about. Only those with an agenda to argue will dig up some proof-of-concept that cannot possibly infect an average user's Mac, so they can argue the technicality. Until malware is released into the wild. it poses NO threat whatsoever to the 50+ million Macs out there.

Let it go, dude.

 

[GGJstudios]

Let it go, dude.

As long as people post misinformation about this, I will challenge it.

 

[PraisiX-windows]

As long as people post misinformation about this, I will challenge it.

Okay, I will edit my first post to stop this discussion then.

Usually, if at least used by a person with some sort of thinking mechanism still intact, I'd believe it refers to the guys, who I've met loads of, they're in a lot of apple vs microsoft discussion, that tell you all sort of things about OS X or mac that are false.

Like claiming that there are NO viruses, that the hardware is not pc hardware and all that, I'm sure you've heard it all yourselves.

I will change it to "that tell you all sort of things about OS X or mac that are either false and/or EXTREMELY OVER-THE-TOP misleading"

Case closed.

 

[GGJstudios]

Case closed.

It's not misleading to say that there are no viruses for Mac OS X, because there are no viruses that a Mac user could ever encounter. It's only misleading to say there is no malware for OS X or that Mac users shouldn't be informed, cautious and prudent, especially when installing software.

 

[Nameci]

I agree with you bro, for the short time I am on OSX, I never got one. It is just a matter of common sense to avoid viruses/malwares or any other *wares.

Probably with Win 7 the system vulnerabilities are less. I cannot say a thing since I have left windows a number of years back for personal computing.

I still deal with XP tough, it is because all the equipments that I work with are not yet updated.

One point that is correct, an apple computer is a "PC". It is a personal computer, nothing more nothing less. It was more unique when it was still using PPC CPUs. But with Intel, there is no line separating Linux box, Windows box and Apple boxes.

I have an old PPC box as my primary, I have an old PPC laptop as my mobile, I have an old PPC as my all in one. Probably I will snag an iPad in the near future to replace my laptop. But as much as possible I want to get away from intel. I want to be different.

But that is just me, that is just my personal preferences. In this free world nobody can take than freedom away from me.

There should be no debate, which is better or which is worse. To each his own.

 

[PraisiX-windows]

I agree with you bro, for the short time I am on OSX, I never got one. It is just a matter of common sense to avoid viruses/malwares or any other *wares.

Probably with Win 7 the system vulnerabilities are less. I cannot say a thing since I have left windows a number of years back for personal computing.

I still deal with XP tough, it is because all the equipments that I work with are not yet updated.

One point that is correct, an apple computer is a "PC". It is a personal computer, nothing more nothing less. It was more unique when it was still using PPC CPUs. But with Intel, there is no line separating Linux box, Windows box and Apple boxes.

I have an old PPC box as my primary, I have an old PPC laptop as my mobile, I have an old PPC as my all in one. Probably I will snag an iPad in the near future to replace my laptop. But as much as possible I want to get away from intel. I want to be different.

But that is just me, that is just my personal preferences. In this free world nobody can take than freedom away from me.

There should be no debate, which is better or which is worse. To each his own.

Thumbs up

 

[PraisiX-windows]

It's not misleading to say that there are no viruses for Mac OS X, because there are no viruses that a Mac user could ever encounter. It's only misleading to say there is no malware for OS X or that Mac users shouldn't be informed, cautious and prudent, especially when installing software.

Hmm, now that I think about it, what we have been doing is actually sort of retarded. I mean, in a nutshell, what we've been discussing is whether or not it's misleading to say there's no virus for os x, which could never become anything else than a subjective opinion.

- I've been trying to convince you that it is misleading, and wouldn't accept that you wouldn't replace your own belief with mine, I think this is what they build wars on.

 

[Mode-III fan]

where is the 'kill this thread' button?

+1 All's forgiven. Now I definitely agree with your message!

GGJstudios and PraisiX-windows!! Try dueling it out with each other privately instead of infesting this thread with your irrelevant dialogue!! You both ruined an otherwise interesting discussion.

It's a pity nebulos' 'kill' button isn't real.

 

[GGJstudios]

GGJstudios and PraisiX-windows!! Try dueling it out with each other privately instead of infesting this thread with your irrelevant dialogue!! You both ruined an otherwise interesting discussion.

This is what open forums are for, not private messaging. What you may consider irrelevant, others may consider interesting and quite relevant. You can always add to your ignore list, if you don't want to see posts by any member.

 

[Alaerian]

Hey, this thread is new and different.

Oh wait ...

 

[iRun26.2]

Forum Talk

This is what open forums are for, not private messaging. What you may consider irrelevant, others may consider interesting and quite relevant. You can always add to your ignore list, if you don't want to see posts by any member.

I tend to agree. I consider the topic of their argument to be closely associated with the original thread (I don't picture the thread as being hijacked).

I like reading competing arguments simply because I think it improves my reasoning skills and helps me better form my responses since I can better anticipate possible arguments to what I might be thinking of writing.

My 2 cents...

 

[Mode-III fan]

This is what open forums are for, not private messaging. What you may consider irrelevant, others may consider interesting and quite relevant. You can always add to your ignore list, if you don't want to see posts by any member.

What makes you think that someone stumbling across the thread, hoping to hear a healthy discussion of the main items raised by the thread starter, would find your argument with PraisiX-windows interesting?? How is your war of words with PraisiX-windows in any way relevant to this thread, except maybe for the short time you argued over thread-relevant stuff??

Look!! Now you've got me arguing with you about a topic other than the original thread!! Don't you get it?

I will be happy to take this further with you privately in the hope that the discussion may get back to it's intended topics.

 

[LouTheArtist]

This is what open forums are for, not private messaging. What you may consider irrelevant, others may consider interesting and quite relevant. You can always add to your ignore list, if you don't want to see posts by any member.

I second this. Oh yeah, and mac only, what's a pc? lol....

 

[GGJstudios]

How is your war of words with PraisiX-windows in any way relevant to this thread, except maybe for the short time you argued over thread-relevant stuff??

The malware issue is one of the central themes of the Mac vs Windows debate. If you don't believe that, you haven't seen many of the "Get A Mac" television ads that Apple aired for years, with "I'm a Mac" and "I'm a PC", and you haven't read any of the Windows vs Mac threads in this forum, where malware is inevitably discussed. This discussion is completely relevant to the original post, which was the first to bring up the topic:

Viruses in Mac?

 

[Mode-III fan]

I tend to agree. I consider the topic of their argument to be closely associated with the original thread (I don't picture the thread as being hijacked).

I like reading competing arguments simply because I think it improves my reasoning skills and helps me better form my responses since I can better anticipate possible arguments to what I might be thinking of writing.

My 2 cents...

Okay, if this is what you're after, why not join a debating society instead?? I thought this was a forum for discussing Apple stuff.

 

[iRun26.2]

Hypocrisy

What makes you think that someone stumbling across the thread, hoping to hear a healthy discussion of the main items raised by the thread starter, would find your argument with PraisiX-windows interesting?? How is your war of words with PraisiX-windows in any way relevant to this thread, except maybe for the short time you argued over thread-relevant stuff??

Look!! Now you've got me arguing with you about a topic other than the original thread!! Don't you get it?

I will be happy to take this further with you privately in the hope that the discussion may get back to it's intended topics.

I know you are sort of making a joke, but now this thread is way away from the original topic.

 

[GGJstudios]

Okay, if this is what you're after, why not join a debating society instead?? I thought this was a forum for discussing Apple stuff.

Have you been reading this thread? We HAVE been discussing "Apple stuff".

 

[Mode-III fan]

Have you been reading this thread? We HAVE been discussing "Apple stuff".

Sure, you guys were discussing the malware issue. Only your arguments, once the 'city and violence' analogy was introduced by PraisiX-windows, started to verge away from topic and at one point seemed to dominate the thread (as you then just began to pick away at one another).

But here I am guilty of exactly that!!