Virus and OS newspaper opinion.

P

polarman5k

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
181
Hi Guys first time posting but I thought you would have a decent laugh and debate over this Opinion piece printed in a small town newspaper in NZ (The Courier).

scan0001.jpg
 
I cringe when I see all these articles in the papers by these so-called 'experts' in computing.
 
The worst thing is how much Windows bashing (especially Vista) the papers round here do.Its like Macs are the absolute be all and end all, Same with linux. Anybody else have these issues where they are?
 
Wow I must be some sort of grandmaster technology expert. Ten million times more knowledge then your average newspaper expert.
 
polarman5k said:
The worst thing is how much Windows bashing (especially Vista) the papers round here do.Its like Macs are the absolute be all and end all, Same with linux. Anybody else have these issues where they are?
Click to expand...

Not here, you're lucky to even see a tech-oriented article. Granted, I never read the newspaper, either...
 
Are you fucking kidding me, who is this ass clown?

"..Two less commonly-used computer systems Mac and Linux - do not diagnose viruses and spyware, but refuse them.."

I mean there are stupid people but thats just ridiculous. Obviously this is the kind of idiot Apple shops for. With people like him you can sell them a $3000 computer every year. Holy fuck, stupid person of the year award right there. Runners up to anyone that reads that article and believes it. I didn't realize that Linux and Mac are "systems" dumb fuck doesn't know the difference between hardware and software clearly. Like Linux and Mac machines aren't just PCs running different OSes.
 
He was babbling throughout the entire article. I caught myself constantly thinking "will you please get to the point?"
 
I think his primary point is that there are probably an order of magnitude less viruses which target OSX and Linux machines, which of course we already know. Pragmatically speaking, it is not as important to install AVS on these systems.
 
Macs and Linux refuse viruses, yea because they are incompatible with the dominant OS, of course the article doesn't mention all your games/apps/hardware get 'refused' too...
 
devil22 said:
Macs and Linux refuse viruses, yea because they are incompatible with the dominant OS, of course the article doesn't mention all your games/apps/hardware get 'refused' too...
Click to expand...

It doesn't mention them because that's not what the article is about.

It's typical of the internet nerd mentality to assume every piece of commentary regarding a single aspect of an OS needs to turn into a definitive overall comparison between them.
 
TechieSooner said:
I'd disagree:
Click to expand...

I'll give you that this point is somewhat ambiguous. After thinking about it for a bit, I presumed it to mean that they refuse to run them because most viruses are not capable of executing on a non-windows machine (for a host of reasons, the biggest being that Linux and OSX run Executable and Linkable Format files, whereas Windows runs Portable Executable files; the respective kernels just won't know what to do with them).

It is possible he is referring to privilege restriction, but this interpretation doesn't really make sense given that code still executes even under a restricted account. He makes it pretty clear that what he is talking about is the code not executing in the first place. Furthermore, restricted accounts are in each of the OSes and have been for over 10 years - so this doesn't seem particularly plausible.

I think the accusations of ignorance are a bit unfounded given that this guy was head of IT at college. He's almost certainly trying to write for an audience which knows very little about computer technology.
 
Its true a lot of people here where the article was posted are not particularly tech savvy, and almost everything that is printed in the local papers is considered gospel by more than a few. The annoying thing is when they come in with the article in hand and ask us to put other operating systems on machines they bought thru us, especially when they ask for Mac stuff, thankfully this doesnt happen too often tho.

Id like to know how this Eddie Bleasdale guy has his pc set up, is it in a cupboard, with no internet connection and turned off, because i could do the same with mine if that were the case.
 
jimmyb said:
It doesn't mention them because that's not what the article is about.

It's typical of the internet nerd mentality to assume every piece of commentary regarding a single aspect of an OS needs to turn into a definitive overall comparison between them.
Click to expand...

Is it the internet nerd mentality or just simple reality? I'm sorry but if you say Mac and Linux don't run Windows viruses, you're implying that everything else is the same, and it most certainly is not.
 
devil22 said:
I'm sorry but if you say Mac and Linux don't run Windows viruses, you're implying that everything else is the same, and it most certainly is not.
Click to expand...
No this is you incorrectly inferring an unrelated statement, my guess is because you presume every comparison should be a comprehensive and complete one. No such implication is made.

If the topic of the article is viruses (which it is), then you should expect the commentary to only relate to viruses, unless explicitly noted otherwise.

This is why there are such ridiculous arguments on the internet (this not excluded): because it's impossible to make a simple statement (ie. Windows viruses only run on Windows) without a handful of raging nerds assuming you were saying something completely different.
 
Currently Mac Viruses are rising. Zlob has a ton of Mac variants, there's a Mac Rogue spyware app, and there have been Mac botnets.

Yes, it's less likely to catch a Mac virus, due to less malware in the wild for them, but it is possible. I immunize myself from Tetanus, even though there has been like 12 reported cases in the United States in the last year... ;)

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
 
jimmyb said:
No this is you incorrectly inferring an unrelated statement, my guess is because you presume every comparison should be a comprehensive and complete one. No such implication is made.

If the topic of the article is viruses (which it is), then you should expect the commentary to only relate to viruses, unless explicitly noted otherwise.

This is why there are such ridiculous arguments on the internet (this not excluded): because it's impossible to make a simple statement (ie. Windows viruses only run on Windows) without a handful of raging nerds assuming you were saying something completely different.
Click to expand...

Oook jimmyb :rolleyes: I think it's apparent to everyone here what this 'author' was saying, so I stand by my comments.
 
The author misses a HUGE point. Even Windows will "refuse" most Windows viruses if the computer is properly patched and maintained.
 
devil22 said:
I think it's apparent to everyone here what this 'author' was saying, so I stand by my comments.
Click to expand...

Agreed, and that's exactly why I said it was typical of the internet nerd rage mentality. The author was trying to make a simple statement and like you said everyone here misconstrues it and gets angry.
 
jimmyb said:
Agreed, and that's exactly why I said it was typical of the internet nerd rage mentality. The author was trying to make a simple statement and like you said everyone here misconstrues it and gets angry.
Click to expand...

Telling people that Mac OS X and Linux don't run a lot of games/apps/hardware that windows does is fair-play in response to an article hyping windows viruses. It doesn't matter what the damn article was about, I am free to add further relevent information that the author might not have 'thought of.' You can sit there and call me a raging nerd all day, but I'm still not going to let a half-truth like that slide by.
 
devil22 said:
Telling people that Mac OS X and Linux don't run a lot of games/apps/hardware that windows does is fair-play in response to an article hyping windows viruses. It doesn't matter what the damn article was about, I am free to add further relevent information that the author might not have 'thought of.' You can sit there and call me a raging nerd all day, but I'm still not going to let a half-truth like that slide by.
Click to expand...

It's only a half-truth because you're so incredibly defensive about OSes. For someone who isn't so invested, it's simple and accurate statement regarding the majority of viruses.

I read it and didn't really think much, since it's fairly common knowledge among this crowd that the majority of viruses are written for Windows. For the audience he was writing for, this is probably not the case.

It's kind of sad that you can't make simple statements like "the majority of viruses only run on Windows" without getting jumped.

Anyway, this conversation is pretty stupid.
 
When he is claiming OSX/Linux prevents viruses where Windows you can only "diagnose" the problem, it is not even a half-truth.
 
chinesepiratefood said:
When he is claiming OSX/Linux prevents viruses where Windows you can only "diagnose" the problem, it is not even a half-truth.
Click to expand...
Maybe we're reading different articles... Can you quote me a line where he indicates that you can "only" diagnose viruses on Windows? I reread the article and can't find it. In fact, he mentions several times that you treat them, as well further indicating some methods for preventing them outright.
 
jimmyb said:
Maybe we're reading different articles... Can you quote me a line where he indicates that you can "only" diagnose viruses on Windows?
Click to expand...
Sure:
Mac and Linux- do not diagnose viruses and spyware, but refuse them
Click to expand...
Now please, shut the hell up. You're not going to win this one in any way, shape, or form.
 
I had some difficulty figuring out the relevance of your quote to what I asked about. Your quote doesn't mention Windows at all, and yet I thought I had specifically asked a question regarding the anti-virus mechanisms on a Windows machine.

As is not uncommon with the English language, there is some ambiguity in whether "only" is an adverb modifying "diagnose", or whether it is an adjective modifying "Windows". Given this, there are two possible subtly different meanings to what I wrote.

Fortunately, the context of my post makes this abundantly clear. The post I was replying to asserts that:
he is claiming OSX/Linux prevents viruses where Windows you can only "diagnose" the problem
Click to expand...
As in, your only recourse in Windows is to diagnose (and not to prevent, or even treat if I might give myself some latitude in interpreting the post). Now, (in either case) this isn't true; the author never said that this was the only option, and in fact explicitly mentions other techniques of combating viruses on Windows. It's beyond me how the poster would suggest this case, when it's ostensibly false as evidenced by the article scan sitting at the top of the thread.

So my challenge remains open to the poster.
 
Last edited:
:rolleyes: Your "challenge" has failed, you just won't admit it. Let me explain it to you.

There are three OS named in the article. Windows, Mac, and Linux. This right here specifies exactly what the article is about.

Thus when you arrive at the quote, through something magical known as context, we find that the author speficially names Mac and Linux as unable to diagnose viruses and spyware.

Two less-commonly used computer systems -Mac and Linux- do not diagnose viruses and spyware, but refuse them
Click to expand...

"Less-commonly used" directly tells you that it's referencing another operating system. "Less commonly used" than what?
Considering the last half dozen paragraphs were all about Windows, I WONDER WHAT THAT "LESS COMMONLY USED" OPERATING SYSTEM COULD BE????

:rolleyes:

I'd expect to have to put a quote like that in context for my 5 year old relative while reading a bedtime story, not for someone able to compose forum posts.
 
The "LESS COMMONLY USED" operating systems are OSX and Linux, as he immediately defines in the sentence. I understand what you're trying to say though.

TechieSooner said:
Two less-commonly used computer systems -Mac and Linux- do not diagnose viruses and spyware, but refuse them
Click to expand...
"Less-commonly used" directly tells you that it's referencing another operating system. "Less commonly used" than what?
Considering the last half dozen paragraphs were all about Windows, I WONDER WHAT THAT "LESS COMMONLY USED" OPERATING SYSTEM COULD BE????
Click to expand...
Like the other poster, you're inferring something from that statement that isn't said. You're assuming that this comparison is at the exclusion of Windows using a non-diagnose based method (and certainly Windows won't run viruses targeted for unixes). The author only speaks to what OSX and Linux do; not windows. This is a classic fallacy.

To make the fallacious inference clearer:
"Humans compared to birds, do not fly; they walk". This is not at the exclusion of birds also walking (they do), which no statement is made upon at all. You are the one inferring it; presumably because this is the internet and we get angry and pedantic about stuff.

The author specifically mentions other non-diagnosing techniques for fighting viruses in Windows:
firewalling, trickster awareness, system updates, checks for rootkits, clean software
Click to expand...
Given that he says this, it's pretty clear that he's not suggesting that Windows can "only" diagnose. He clearly mentions other methods for staving off viruses.

(also trickster awareness? - this is the only thing which threw me off)
 
I thought you were going to drop it, but since you keep posting I'll post a response:

jimmyb said:
It's only a half-truth because you're so incredibly defensive about OSes. For someone who isn't so invested, it's simple and accurate statement regarding the majority of viruses.
Click to expand...

Entirely your biased opinion, I could equally say: You think it's not a half-truth because you're so incredibly defensive about OSes. For someone who isn't so invested, it's a simple and accurate statement [to say mac os x/linux don't support all the windows games/apps/hardware.]

I read it and didn't really think much, since it's fairly common knowledge among this crowd that the majority of viruses are written for Windows. For the audience he was writing for, this is probably not the case.
Click to expand...

That audience probably doesn't know but should know that they'll lose all their apps/games/hardware if they switch to these Security through Obscurity OSes. And once they gain market share through this trickery, the user will be in the same boat regarding viruses, or perhaps much worse since OSes like Mac OS X lack basic security mechanisms employed in Vista, released 2 years ago, that stop most exploits.

It's kind of sad that you can't make simple statements like "the majority of viruses only run on Windows" without getting jumped.
Click to expand...

It's sad when you can't make a statement like "Mac OS X/Linux don't support all the games/apps/hardware that windows do" without getting jumped.
Anyway, this conversation is pretty stupid.
Click to expand...

Yes, because this article was stupid. And it's also stupid to engage in behavior you accuse others of [raging nerdism, defensive and invested in OSes, etc.]
 
I'm tempted to start writing my own articles on this stuff. Maybe if I make up a bunch of crap about Windows crashing and getting viruses every 5 minutes, and how Macs never have problems, I'll get a job as a tech columnist.

It's called sensationalism, people. Everybody (and by that I mean the non-tech savy general consumer) has or has had Windows, and they've all been there when it's crashed (Usually through their own fault and wrong doing, but it's just too easy for people to blame the 'stupid windows'), and as a result, they can connect with the author when they say "Windows sucks and doesn't work! Buy a Mac instead!" They get optimistic and hopeful when they're told how all those problems they've faced when using a Windows machine- the cool blue glow canvassed in white nonsense- can be gone by changing platforms, and they buy into it. It's all a matter of telling people what they want to hear, because ultimately that's what they're going to read, and that's what the publications want.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top