Jason Lixfeld wrote: When we got to where we were going, my mom was complaining that her digital camera flash was full and she didn't have another one. I told her that I could download the pictures to my powerbook and email them to her later. As I was connecting the camera, she asked "Well, don't you need to download and install the softw...." she stopped mid-sentence as the Mac found the PowerShot, opened iphoto and proceeded to download the pictures -- no software needed. She looked Jealous.
If the Powershot was designed as a Mac-only camera, it's Canon's stupidity. I never used one, but when I plug my Sony cybershot to any PC it comes up right away without any software. Since Macs are available in stores, how do you explain that they don't get the lion's share of the market if they're so superior to the PeeCee as you claim? I have had an Apple computer for 25 years (1979 that is, and I still have my II plus). In the early eighties Apple dominated the personal computer market (yes there were TRS-80s and Commodore 64s, but Apple was the leader). Then they released the Apple ///, then the Lisa, then the Mac. At the same time, IBM released the PC, which was an overpriced piece of crud. Guess what: the Wintel platform became standard, over the established leader (Apple). Because IBM and Microsoft managed to produced what the market wanted to buy, instead of what a few gurus in an ivory tower in Cupertino thought what the ultimate PC would be.
When the last big MS virus/worm caused it's major shitstorm, my mom asked me if I ever get infected with viruses. I said no, I run a Mac. They are immune to these viruses.
Complete BS. There are Mac viruses allright, and the reason these worms target the Windows platform is simply because there are much more of them and therefore an Outlook worm is much more likely to succeed than a Mac worm. If Apple is still around with 3% of the market, it's because Bill Gates bailed them out as he wanted to keep a competitor alive when they were in the feds cross-hairs because of that monopoly thing. I'll tell you what: if you know how to make the Mac the dominant platform, go see Steve Jobs and ask for 100 million bucks in cash in exchange for the tip. And if you're not happy with Windows, you're free to write a competitive product to replace it. That's what Microsoft did to Apple 20 years ago, BTW. It's called market economy. Michel.
When the last big MS virus/worm caused it's major shitstorm, my mom asked me if I ever get infected with viruses. I said no, I run a Mac. They are immune to these viruses.
Complete BS. There are Mac viruses allright, and the reason these worms target the Windows platform is simply because there are much more of them and therefore an Outlook worm is much more likely to succeed than a Mac worm.
<unlurk> I'm sorry, but this is a very common misconception. There hasn't been one single Mac virus in several years, and I believe that one was a Microsoft Word macro virus. Or, maybe Autostart 9805 - but that was discovered in May, 1998. How many Windows viruses have shown up in the past few years? Apache powers far more websites than IIS, yet IIS has suffered a much larger number of exploits. The reason there aren't any Mac viruses most certainly is *not* because "there are not as many of them." One could even go so far as to say that the Mac would be a more likely target because of Apple's security claims. It's a much more high-profile target. Imagine the boasting rights one would have if they could get a Mac virus to spread in these modern days! <lurks once again> -Jonathan
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Jonathan Nichols Sent: January 29, 2004 12:53 PM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: MS is vulnerable
The reason there aren't any Mac viruses most certainly is *not* because "there are not as many of them." One could even go so far as to say that the Mac would be a more likely target because of Apple's security claims. It's a much more high-profile target. Imagine the boasting rights one would have if they could get a Mac virus to spread in these modern days!
I'm sure boasting about writing a Mac virus will make you the big man on the block in your wing at Club Fed :) Seriously, boasting about writing damaging viruses is downright stupid... So the only way to make headlines is to write a really damaging virus that gets lots of publicity. Compare the following scenarios. Scenario A: Person writes damaging Mac virus. 1-3% of computers out there are infected. Network operators barely notice a blip on their MRTG Media doesn't pick up on the story, except for slashdot (and is /. really media?). Person feels his genius is underappreciated. Person posts to bugtraq to boast of his achievement. FBI shows up and takes him to Club Fed. Scenario B: Person writes damaging Windows virus/worm. 20% of computers out there are infected Network operators scramble on this mailing list to figure out the right ACL in vendor C, J, and others' syntax to slow down the thing. CNN makes it one of the top ten headlines on their web site TV news makes it the second story, right after the latest accusations that Bush lied about something in Iraq. Virus author quietly sits in the background smirking while he watches the TV news. Isn't B more fun for a virus author (and network operators' cardiologists)? Vivien -- Vivien M. vivienm@dyndns.org Assistant System Administrator Dynamic Network Services, Inc. http://www.dyndns.org/
Hi everyone: I'm having some strange traffic show up on my PIX. Looking at the "show conn" I have many many machines attempting to make outbound UDP/138 connections to 192.168.x.x addresses. We don't have any 192.168.x.x addresses inside the company. This is blocked at our Internet router, so it's not going out, but still would like to know what this is. [Snip from "show conn | inc 192.168" on PIX] (Internal IP addresses changed to protect the innocent - or not so innocent) UDP out 192.168.19.100:138 in 1.2.5.108:138 UDP out 192.168.19.100:138 in 1.2.8.126:138 UDP out 192.168.19.100:138 in 3.4.0.151:138 UDP out 192.168.19.100:138 in 3.6.18.169:138 UDP out 192.168.19.100:138 in 3.6.18.75:138 UDP out 192.168.19.100:138 in 3.6.2.156:138 UDP out 192.168.19.100:138 in 3.6.26.99:138 UDP out 192.168.19.100:138 in 3.6.26.99:138 UDP out 192.168.19.100:138 in 3.6.28.95:138 UDP out 192.168.19.100:138 in 3.6.28.95:138 UDP out 192.168.19.100:138 in 3.6.32.166:138 UDP out 192.168.19.100:138 in 3.6.32.166:138 UDP out 192.168.19.100:138 in 3.6.36.81:138 UDP out 192.168.19.100:138 in 3.6.36.90:138 UDP out 192.168.19.100:138 in 3.6.4.66:138 UDP out 192.168.19.100:138 in 3.6.46.150:138 UDP out 192.168.19.100:138 in 3.6.46.150:138 UDP out 192.168.19.100:138 in 3.6.46.150:138 UDP out 192.168.19.100:138 in 3.6.46.82:138 UDP out 192.168.19.100:138 in 3.6.46.82:138 UDP out 192.168.19.100:138 in 3.6.50.72:138 UDP out 192.168.19.100:138 in 3.6.50.72:138 (and just keeps going and going and going...) These machines are all over the country, here are the unique 192.168. addresses they are all trying to connect to. 192.168.19.100 192.168.2.15 192.168.2.230 192.168.28.21 192.168.34.99 192.168.34.99 192.168.64.67 192.168.77.223 192.168.80.7 If anyone knows anything about this, I would appreciate some feedback. Feel free to reply off-line and I'll reply to the list with the responses. A Norton AV scan shows nothing. Thanks, - Darrell ====================================================================== Darrell Kristof, CISSP, CCNP, TICSA Network Manager/Team Leader Whole Foods Market, Corporate Offices E-Mail: darrell.kristof@wholefoods.com
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 12:24:15 -0600 Darrell Kristof <darrell.kristof@wholefoods.com> wrote:
Hi everyone:
I'm having some strange traffic show up on my PIX. Looking at the "show conn" I have many many machines attempting to make outbound UDP/138 connections to 192.168.x.x addresses. We don't have any 192.168.x.x addresses inside the company. This is blocked at our Internet router, so it's not going out, but still would like to know what this is.
138 is NETBIOS (an MS protocol). look for windows clients that have somehow gotten it in their head that they need to make a NETBIOS connection to the cited RFC1918 space. could this be a side effect of one of the current generation of viruses? richard -- Richard Welty rwelty@averillpark.net Averill Park Networking 518-573-7592 Java, PHP, PostgreSQL, Unix, Linux, IP Network Engineering, Security
On Jan 29, 2004, at 12:31 PM, Michel Py wrote:
If the Powershot was designed as a Mac-only camera, it's Canon's stupidity. I never used one, but when I plug my Sony cybershot to any PC it comes up right away without any software.
I should withdraw this comment. After I sent the message, I realized that my comment was unfounded. Sorry.
Since Macs are available in stores, how do you explain that they don't get the lion's share of the market if they're so superior to the PeeCee as you claim? ... Guess what: the Wintel platform became standard, over the established leader (Apple). Because IBM and Microsoft managed to produced what the market wanted to buy, instead of what a few gurus in an ivory tower in Cupertino thought what the ultimate PC would be.
Yes, and the guys in the white ivory tower realized that they err'd. I'm glad they have only 3% market share. I doubt they will ever get past 5-10% market share and that's not a bad thing, it's a good thing (tm) because that will mean they will never be plagued with the problems MS has. They (Apple) make a great product, IMO far superior to anything that can be found in PC land. To that end, I'm happy being one of the 3% watching the masses of the 97% struggle.
When the last big MS virus/worm caused it's major shitstorm, my mom asked me if I ever get infected with viruses. I said no, I run a Mac. They are immune to these viruses.
Complete BS. There are Mac viruses allright, and the reason these worms target the Windows platform is simply because there are much more of them and therefore an Outlook worm is much more likely to succeed than a Mac worm.
"They are immune to these viruses" actually meant these viruses/works specifically causing the havoc in the last year or so. Sorry for not being more clear.
If Apple is still around with 3% of the market, it's because Bill Gates bailed them out as he wanted to keep a competitor alive when they were in the feds cross-hairs because of that monopoly thing. I'll tell you what: if you know how to make the Mac the dominant platform, go see Steve Jobs and ask for 100 million bucks in cash in exchange for the tip.
Jobs is hardly a competitor for Gates. 3% to what? 90%? I hardly call that competition.
And if you're not happy with Windows, you're free to write a competitive product to replace it. That's what Microsoft did to Apple 20 years ago, BTW. It's called market economy.
I don't need to write anything, I have it already, it runs on my powerbook. Like I said, if things hadn't happened the way they did, we would all be stuck using MS with even less alternatives. I say again, IMO Apple builds a superior product. It's because they only have 3% market share that product exists. I'm happy paying the premium because I get what I pay for.
Michel.
participants (6)
-
Darrell Kristof
-
Jason Lixfeld
-
Jonathan Nichols
-
Michel Py
-
Richard Welty
-
Vivien M.