I want to hear which you think is better, real reasons please. Not just, well I think Mac is stupid and for hipsters..or Aw PCs are for poor people..or crap like that. Thank you :)

Views: 1050

Replies to This Discussion

I think the major vulnerability of either type of machine has become the user, not the hardware or OS. Experts say both Microsoft and Apple are doing a good job of keeping vulnerabilities out of their systems. The two weaknesses are that the bad guys concentrate on getting into PC's simply because there are more of them. Also, the vulnerability has largely switched from direct backdoor intrusions to using social engineering to trick users into downloading and installing malware.

What is the point of antivirus software or keeping your OS up to date if you're so eager to see a supposed video of Princess Kate nude that you'll ignore all warnings that the file is unsafe? Well, it's not always like that. Sometimes you download a seemingly useful utility but it has some sort of trojan horse inside. And it may not be that they're even interested in what's on your machine. They may simply want to use your machine to do their bidding in the background. Did you hear about the recent denial of service attacks on banks? Without knowing it, you're PC (or Mac) may have been one of the computers on attack. All while you were on Facebook or watching a Netflix movie.

Ouch. I really do know the difference between "your" and "you're," but when I'm typing fast, my fingers sometimes type in a homonym.

What's the best way to find out if my computer is on a bot-net? Or do I just keep an eye on any unexplained upload traffic?

What's the best way to find out if my computer is on a bot-net? Or do I just keep an eye on any unexplained upload traffic?

This answer assumes you are using Windows.

Once your computer is rooted it's useless for reliably detecting or resolving the problem itself since the results of every antivirus scan or utility (including upload traffic) can be faked. Stealth is the name of the game now. 

One way around this involves booting the Windows PC from a USB or CD with the same or different OS and then running a scan of the hard drive off of that. But using an antivirus scanner is a game of cat and mouse, and no scanner can guarantee that it'll find everything. Say your computer is acting extremely weird, you run a scan like this, and it finds nothing. What then?

The only way to be sure: 1. back up all of your data (except for any executable files from untrustworthy sources). 2. wipe the hard disk clean. 3. reinstall Windows (sigh, if you must) and put your data back.

It's worth mentioning that there are no Linux or Unix bot-nets. Bot-nets are always comprised of thousands or even millions of zombied Windows PCs.

And to be fair there are no Mac bot-nets either. But that's because a Mac is a Unix system wearing yoga pants and lipstick.

And to be fair there are no Mac bot-nets either. But that's because a Mac is a Unix system wearing yoga pants and lipstick.

I take it back. Mac bot-nets are starting to appear now. So a Mac is a Unix system wearing yoga pants, lipstick, and an 'Apple fucked me up to make me look this sexy' sign around its neck.

Thanks. What do I owe you?

"Say your computer is acting extremely weird"

That's the problem. My only known exposure to bot-nets was when I got a new boarder and I noticed my upload traffic going through the roof. I ran a couple of scans from different vendors but, like you said, they found nothing. He was resistant because his computer showed NO symptoms, but I told him that he could reconnect to my network when I saw a report from a local malware service. I told him I'd pay for the service if his computer was clean. So he took it in and, sure enough, loaded with malware. Happily they were able to remove the infections and my upload traffic returned to virtually nothing. They said that the bot-net his computer was on is driven from Russia and has an estimated 25 million "clients".

Thanks. What do I owe you?

I accept payment in goodwill, street cred, or positive waves. 9 seconds worth, please.

He was resistant because his computer showed NO symptoms, but I told him that he could reconnect to my network when I saw a report from a local malware service. I told him I'd pay for the service if his computer was clean. So he took it in and, sure enough, loaded with malware.

Definitely rooted. The malware operates at the same level of privilege as the operating system itself. It creates its own memory space and its own little filesystem on the hard disk and hides it, so when a security app runs a scan, it never knows anything is there and it comes back clean. The baddie loads into RAM memory and runs from there exclusively (so there is no performance hit by having to read and write from the hard drive). As far as the user knows, everything is fine.

Hopefully they were using it to beat on a web site run by the Koch brothers.

For goodness sake why this debate, its obvious - LINUX !  

I think one of the main reasons is the expertise in one's social circle. When my daughter has problems with her Windows machine, her first call is to me, and I almost always can help. If she was running some variation on UNIX, she'd have to talk to someone she may not know. "Perpinquity breeds special relationships." In other words, people are more comfortable dealing with people they know. 

I might consider TRYING LINUX on one of my three computers if I knew someone else who would be there to help me through the learning curve. After that, the question would be how well it could run the software I rely on, which would almost be in some sort of simulated Windows environment. You see, I use some very sophisticated software, so I doubt if some sort of generic no-name substitute running on the LINUX level would do the job a photographer's tool such as ThumbPlus (Cerious Software) would do.

Note: I moved this to the end of the main thread because the original post in the original spot didn't display properly.
I am not arguing whether their business model is optimal (or even good) or not from a consumer perspective -- I already stated that they don't need to charge that much to remain lucrative --, just that charging for their product in and of itself isn't a bad thing.
Agreed. It isn't a bad thing. Not for Adobe. But it's bad for everyone else. Not 100% of everyone else, but close.
That's where the $1.3 billion marketing budget goes: convincing you that $600 for Photoshop is worth it because no alternatives exist (or that if any do exist trying them is silly, even if they're free).
That's the wonder of marketing: with the right spin Abobe can shove a foot up your ass all the way to the knee and you'll still waddle out of there with a grin, clutching your shrink-wrapped copy of Photoshop.
Space is tight and, odd as it sounds, my desktop needs some degree of mobility.
The power contained my hulking Linux PC tower is mobile, thanks to VNC remote access software and my laptop, which is worth maybe $450. All the laptop needs the power to do is get online, run a browser, and update the display. It's just like using my desktop PC, because I AM using my desktop PC, just with the keyboard, pointer, and display of the laptop. The screen resolution isn't as good, but in my-- brace yourself-- niche it doesn't have to be when I'm mobile.

Free software isn't typically pushing development on this front. Paid software by paid developers is.

I'm sorry Kris, but that simply isn't true. Linux, Unix, and open source software are quite typically found in computer science departments, visual information laboratories, and human-computer interaction institutions at universities around the world, and these places are very much pushing new developments in image processing, computer vision, motion analysis, stereo vision, image segmentation, object recognition, 3D tracking and reconstruction, wearable computing, medical imaging, robotic vision, biometrics and animation. Photoshop itself began 'pushing development' as a program written by a graduate student at a computer science department at the University of Michigan.

Also, the Free/Open Source Software community is made up of a combination of corporate sponsors and thousands of unpaid volunteers (most of whom are professional software engineers and programmers doing the work for fun in their spare time). 

What marketing campaign are you looking at? I haven't seen it, but I'd like to. 

I said they spent $1.3 billion on marketing. That's all marketing activity, not just one campaign. But they still spent more than TWICE as much on marketing in 2012 than they did on all product development combined. Look at their annual report and see for yourself.

For added perspective, Linux doesn't have a billion-dollar marketing department, and it's available for free. That's why all the researchers and scientists are using it to develop new stuff with. 

So? I'm not asking you to adopt my needs, and your solution doesn't adequately meet mine. What's the relevance?

Friendly conversation, Kris.

Sure, we can spend $3500 on a Mac, $600 on Photoshop, and $9 on a Starbuck's grande latte with a triple shot. If we want to. But is it really a "need"?

From what I've seen in the last 25 years: rarely.

You're already on a different front. I am not suggesting Adobe invented the wheel.

Same front, Kris. You said "free software isn't typically pushing development on this front". Free software pushes software development on every front, and that includes image editors like GIMP.

Great for them, but the professional market and even invested amateurs are willing to pay for the superior product which happens to not be the product they are developing in this case.

Of course they're willing to pay. But how do they know Photoshop is the superior product? They don't. They assume it because Adobe is a trusted brand. Why do so few bother to try GIMP despite that it's free, even when they do hear about it? Because everyone else uses Adobe.  

Tell me, Kris. You don't suppose the $1.3 billion Adobe spent on sales and marketing in 2012 alone has anything to do with that kind of brand trust and brand loyalty, do you? You don't think that's exactly what Adobe wants, even after you agreed earlier that Adobe overcharges those same loyal customers? 

I don't know that to call that but "unsubstantiated" doesn't come to mind.

Creating Photoshop is work. I profit from that work. I don't have an issue paying for that work in exchange for the benefits it provides me.

Neither do I. Pay all you want for those benefits. Enjoy. 

I'm simply pointing out that I have no issue with getting something free of charge and then deriving the same benefits or superior benefits from it. In fact, I think it's better that way. That's why I prefer a Linux PC over a Mac or a Windows PC.


© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service