Comment Feed for Apple redefines 'Epic FAIL' (Coffeehouse on Channel 9)

Re: Apple redefines 'Epic FAIL'

GoddersUK — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 11:00:27 GMT

My Ubuntu installation has something to say about this:

I think perhaps turning number of fire particles/particle life up too high was beginning to strain my graphics card though :(

Re: Apple redefines 'Epic FAIL'

Go Microsoft !!!!!!! — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 20:58:50 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Apple redefines 'Epic FAIL'

John — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 14:56:51 GMT

"don't think that software is more secure just because it doesn't have less flaws"

Holy crap reading that made my head hurt.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Apple redefines 'Epic FAIL'

Maddus Mattus — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 08:55:25 GMT

Unix has penetrated the server market pretty good. But those machines, like the windows servers, are managed by professional people, who actually know what they are doing. All analogies we make are flawed, because we dont know all the facts. Sure there have been some studies, but they all make assumptions. Let's just hang back and see how this plays out.

Re: Re: Re: Apple redefines 'Epic FAIL'

Ray7 — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 08:43:46 GMT

Yes, I quoted that badly. I actually agree with you.

As platforms become more lucrative they do become targets. But the other factor is that Unix-based systems have not penetrated the home market to the same level that Windows has, so his argument pretty much fails on that count.

And yes, the user is the usually where the problem lies. But that does not mean that vendors shouldn't be doing all they can to protect the users from themselves.

Re: Re: Apple redefines 'Epic FAIL'

Maddus Mattus — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 08:23:06 GMT

The point that I make is that when an OS becomes more popular it becomes more lucrative to hack. I am not saying anything about wich platform is more secure.

Actually, they both share the common flaw;

The user

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Apple redefines 'Epic FAIL'

Ray7 — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 08:16:42 GMT

I've been running Leopard since 10.5.0, and there have been some flaws for sure. Only speaking from my own experience (and I'm running 10.5.3 on a 12" PowerBook G4 1.5 and a modded-up Quicksilver tower), Leopard is pretty stable for me...The .3 release was huge, and went part of the way to fixing a variety of flaws; but I agree that in certain respects, Leopard feels more beta-like than 10.4.11 did.

Well, I guess I could have been spoiled. Up until this point I think Apple has had its game in order. OSX has been on an even evolutionary development that has (after a few point releases) delivered stable benefits for years. Then all of sudden, we start getting really amateurish mistakes. Am I expecting too much from them?

I wonder if Vista would run as well on a PC as relatively underpowered as my PB (which runs Leopard very well).

What has that got to do with the price of bottled air?

[fx:massages bridge of nose between thumb and index finger]

Will folk PLEASE stop pointing at Microsoft as if it's some kind of defence? If you don't see Vista as a good example of OS engineering, then what is the point of using it as a comparison?

I'm not running Vista on my office PC because we have encountered too many incompatibilities with test-bed systems there

Well, I will just say that I hear that.

(although certain of our IT staff really like Vista).

I have mixed feelings at the moment ....

Re: Apple redefines 'Epic FAIL'

Ray7 — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 08:01:41 GMT

Ah! Linking goof-up!

Rixstep has correctly pointed out that I have actually pointed to the same flaw twice.

Sorry folks!

But why assume that when Windows users point out the flaws, they are jumping for joy? What he fails to realise that an increasing number of Windows users are also Apple Mac users. Again, this is the same argument I see all the time when Apple fouls up; quickly divert attention away from the problem and point at Microsoft. Well, I don't want to look away; I want the problems fixed.

But are innocent bystanders supposed to start jumping for joy?

Ah well,... [sic] the windows [sic] crowd always said that Apple wasnt [sic] more secure. It was just a less popular platform for hackers. Now that their install base is going up, it is becomming [sic] more and more lucrative to find exploits for Apple computers.

That matter of time: how many hundreds of thousands of active thriving viruses are out there for Windows? Are there any for any Unix system? Any whatsoever?

An odd comparision really, and I'm not really sure how it proves his point. To begin with, Unix hasn't really taken off as a desktop operating system, so there is little point in writing lucrative money-sucking trojans for an operating system that doesn't have a large desktop presence. Is there any real point in presenting a Unix administrator with a poker game that asks for his root login details? I don't think he would fall for it to be honest. I'm not even sure that the vast majority of Unix systems are used for web browsing ....

Poster Ray7 does ask a valid question.

I find myself asking yet again: have things slid since Tevanian left?

And that's a good question. Especially as so many things have 'slid' in Tiger and now even more in Leopard. Apple have, as all know, diverted attention from their computer OS to concentrate more fully on their iPhone OS.

Actually, what's needed here is a good answer. Hopefully, that'll be Snow Leopard.

The astonishingly clueless Windows losers really think all computer systems behave this way - wobbly, crash prone, lacklustre - and wide open to the most puerile of script kiddie attacks. Clue: they aren't. None of them are. Only Windows is.

Talk about defensive ....

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Apple redefines 'Epic FAIL'

brian.shapiro — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 06:35:23 GMT

brich's dog: better than jamie's dog?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Apple redefines 'Epic FAIL'

Brandon Paddock — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 04:37:23 GMT

This is why I think Snow Leopard needs to be Apple's XP SP2.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Apple redefines 'Epic FAIL'

Brian Richardson — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 11:52:01 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Re: Apple redefines 'Epic FAIL'

Ray7 — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 06:48:43 GMT

Well actually it is just as easy to run as a standard user on Vista (though I have come across a number of apps that still insist on access to the whole machine - invariably, they don't run very well anyway so I just dump them.)

No, my concern is not the trojans; it is the overall quality of Leopard. Just take a look in the Apple forums (you have to be quick though; Apple has a policy of deleting messages that paint there tech in a less than favourable light); Leopard is the worst release to date and people are still having problems with 10.5.3 - which is why I haven't upgraded.

With rising marketshare comes great responsibility; I don't think Apple is taking its responsibility to its customers seriously enough.

We'll see what happens next year after the great reset.

Oh, and that's another thing.

Microsoft resets OS development and releases an OS that on the face of it, doesn't add much value over the previous one. They are slaughtered in the press.

When Apple resets OS development and releases an OS that on the face of it, doesn't add much value over the previous, I have a feeling that the press reaction will be somewhat different.

Re: Re: Re: Apple redefines 'Epic FAIL'

Brian Richardson — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 23:19:15 GMT

I'm concerned as well. 60% of my work day is spent living in XP, and I've experienced over the years what can happen on that platform...especially pre-sp2. That said, Trojans usually rely on social engineering stupidity, and it is easier to run as a Standard User in Leopard. But Apple needs to focus on this stuff to avoid the damage that Micosoft has had to deal with since the late '90s.

Re: Re: Apple redefines 'Epic FAIL'

Ray7 — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 23:00:51 GMT

The trojans aren't a problem (certainly not now the platform has them it appears); Apple's jaw-dropping bugs are becoming a real concern to me though.

I thought the network copy bug was bad, but this really is a cause for concern. Could be a case of too much focus on selling the iPhone is causing the rest of the product mix to suffer.

Always love it when folk point the finger at Windows to divert attention away from problems with OSX though. As a Mac user myself I find it counterproductive as it gives Apple an easy ride; this leads to exactly the sort of foul ups we're seeing with this Remote Desktop bug.

I especially love the part where Apple tells users that its nothing to be concerned about ...

I'm a user. I'm concerned.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Apple redefines 'Epic FAIL'

Ray7 — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 22:52:55 GMT

WTF?!

Re: Re: Apple redefines 'Epic FAIL'

Ray7 — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 22:51:26 GMT

Yup.

Bit of a daft one isn't it?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Apple redefines 'Epic FAIL'

Brian Richardson — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 19:01:17 GMT

Looks like Apple do not want Trojans in the restrooms....

Re: Re: Re: Re: Apple redefines 'Epic FAIL'

Mark Wisecarver — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 17:54:55 GMT

Just caught a bit of news about Apple on Heather Hamilton's blog:
http://blogs.msdn.com/heatherleigh/archive/2008/06/19/bathroom-buddies.aspx

Seems Apple is a bit paranoid.

Apple forces bathroom escorts on WWDC reporters
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/06/13/apple_forces_bathroom_escorts_on_wwdc_reporters.html

Re: Re: Re: Apple redefines 'Epic FAIL'

Mark Wisecarver — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 17:46:15 GMT

Personally I find this rather funny.

Why?

Years ago Microsoft VS. Apple was not about security.

Back in the late 80's and early 90's I used to hold 3D animation contests.
About that time that stinking Video Toaster came out and, well, things changed. :-)

I've remained faithful to Microsoft but I admit Apple changed the depth of the way we use graphics now.

Re: Re: Apple redefines 'Epic FAIL'

Sven Groot — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 16:45:47 GMT

Sure looks like it. Ouch!

Re: Re: Apple redefines 'Epic FAIL'

Christian Liensberger — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 16:37:30 GMT

It's always the same... don't think that software is more secure just because it doesn't have less flaws. It's much more stuff that comes into the game on why hackers decide to take a look at a certain app and try to exploid it. One of them is fame and where the most of it can gained; and that makes obiously the most important and well known thing the target #1.

Re: Re: Re: Apple redefines 'Epic FAIL'

Brian Richardson — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 15:22:28 GMT

It's that little enterprise that has taken too much of my discretionary income :-)

Re: Apple redefines 'Epic FAIL'

GoddersUK — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 15:21:37 GMT

did I understand that rixstep one?

You can sudo without user consent?

Re: Re: Apple redefines 'Epic FAIL'

Mark Wisecarver — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 13:28:38 GMT

What's Apple?

Re: Apple redefines 'Epic FAIL'

Brian Richardson — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 13:18:44 GMT

Yep, Apple has some work to do on the security front, and my Intego VirusBarrier signatures just updated to cover that 'trojan' in the wild crappola. However, 2 Trojans in the wild hardly align with whatever the number is on another platform we all know and love...right?

I'm sure we'll continue to see more vulnerabilities for OSX users to be aware of....still waiting to see actual exploits that cream enough Mac users to create a cottage industry of shops that specialize in nuking and repaving Macs (like the geek squads and their ilk for PCs).