Can you name me a OS that you feel is safe from hacking ? Here's a (albeit incomplete) list if you need any inspiration :
BeOS
RiscOS
HP-UX
Solaris
Free/Net/OpenBSD
Linux
Windows NT
MS/PC/DR/Free DOS
Darwin/OS X
Irix
AIX
OS/400
OpenVMS
z/OS
VxWorks
Nope... all written in good old C or C++ by good old humans.
Code:
int numbers[4];
numbers[4] = somevar;
/* game over */
I never said any OS is safe from hacking, but maybe one day they will be. That is what I meant with "we'll see". I have the feeling you have taken my, probably out of place, comment to the extreme, but thanks (really, no sarcasm) for the list and education.
Nothing in your link provides insight into why Unix or what in Unix makes OS X safe. Again, specifically. You claim the Unix code in OS X makes it safe. What part of the specification/which code are you referring to ? Heck, let's go up a level and just talk Unix features in general if it's any easier. Which feature is this ?
I also never said, Mac OS X is safe from hacking, I provided an article properly explaining, why the Mac OS X underpinnings, rooting in UNIX and FreeBSD, make it harder for malware writers to actually write a proper virus. Windows has different underpinnings (DOS, Win NT), the former making it easy for virus writers, the later making it a bit more complicated, and Windows 7 is quite good at protecting itself.
The poster I quoted also took the marketshare of Windows into account, thus the link to the article, as Mac OS Classic (7, 8, 9) had its fair share (80 or so) of actual viruses, while having less marketshare than Mac OS X nowadays, for which no real and actual virus is in public circulation.
Do you even understand the difference between Unix the trademark, Unix the codebase (copyrighted Novell code base from Bell labs) and Unix the specification (SUS managed by the OpenGroup) ?
My understanding is pretty basic, but I don't claim to understand it that much. All I was mentioning are the roots/underpinnings in relation to that article.
Otherwise, I think you should stop claiming Unix has anything to do with OS X's relative lack of targeting by malware authors.
I understand, but I suppose writing malware for Mac OS X is more prestigious than writing for Windows, but still the malware in existence is pretty lame and can be avoided by employing safe computing steps.
I run Mac OS X since 2004 and have visited my fair share of shady sites and also dabbled in warez, when the software I used and use was too expensive for me to get. I never had any malware on my Mac, but then again, I employed those safe steps outlined by the Virus/Malware FAQ, even before they were outlined. I only ran Sophos for a month, to see, if they can actually help me. All it did, was using up CPU cycles and warning me off Windows malware. As if I care about that.
And that allows you to dispel myths using other myths... why exactly ?
Are you on a warpath? I don't dispel myths with other myths. That last sentence was more a slide and a feeling, because since Apple went iOS, their Mac OS X versions have been lacking quite some stability.
The PPC Macs I used, running 10.2 to 10.4 were often more stable than the Intel Macs running
Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard to
Mac OS X 10.7 Lion. And it was also a slide at the removal of Spaces in
Mac OS X 10.7 Lion. Nothing more. Please don't make more of it than it actually is, but I guess written communication sometimes lacks the physical component.
Anyway, I stand by my words, that that what I have learned, the part about Mac OS X being rooted in UNIX and FreeBSD, wasn't Mac OS X recognised as real UNIX OS some years ago, is the reason, that malware needs more user interaction in Mac OS X to be successful and that current existing malware has those roots in its way to employ themselves properly.
Can we agree on that?
