For my Mac Friends who need no protection..

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=301061

William Foley wrote:
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=301061


Thanks for the heads up, Bill.

On 03/22/2005 09:57 AM +0900, William Foley wrote:
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=301061

Way ta troll, Billy-Joe! Now, how does that go again? Oh, yeah, "Create
filter from message..."

Have a delicious day. :-)

trane
--
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
// Trane Francks Tokyo, Japan
// Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.

Oh no, a sleepless night for the Apple-onians to research and explain
in great detail why each exploit has and could never constitute a
threat to their empire... zzzzzzzzzz


William Foley wrote:
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=301061

William Foley:
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=301061

As a troll who knows nothing about the Mac OS, you may be laboring
under the misconception that the Mac OS needs no protection. As the
article you cited makes clear, the Mac OS needs protection, and it has
the protection it needs. That's why there is still not a single virus
-- not one -- or instance of spyware or zombieware et al for Mac OS X.

Davoud

Davoud wrote:

William Foley:
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=301061

As a troll who knows nothing about the Mac OS, you may be laboring
under the misconception that the Mac OS needs no protection. As the
article you cited makes clear, the Mac OS needs protection, and it has
the protection it needs. That's why there is still not a single virus
-- not one -- or instance of spyware or zombieware et al for Mac OS X.

I assure you that there were _plenty_ of Mac viruses around in the late
80s and early 90s. One of my jobs at the time was to clean up after
infections of an Appletalk network (no PCs in use on that network at the
time). Also, keep in mind that the original "worm" in the 80s spread
only on Unix machines.

If Mac numbers increase, there will be plenty of Mac specific malware to
feed on them.

--
Pat O'Connell
[note munged EMail address]
Take nothing but pictures, Leave nothing but footprints,
Kill nothing but vandals...

Pat O'Connell wrote:
Davoud wrote:

William Foley:

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=301061


As a troll who knows nothing about the Mac OS, you may be laboring
under the misconception that the Mac OS needs no protection. As the
article you cited makes clear, the Mac OS needs protection, and it has
the protection it needs. That's why there is still not a single virus
-- not one -- or instance of spyware or zombieware et al for Mac OS X.


I assure you that there were _plenty_ of Mac viruses around in the late
80s and early 90s. One of my jobs at the time was to clean up after
infections of an Appletalk network (no PCs in use on that network at the
time). Also, keep in mind that the original "worm" in the 80s spread
only on Unix machines.

If Mac numbers increase, there will be plenty of Mac specific malware to
feed on them.


Ref: March 2005 Issue Mac World

"At press time research from Sophos (a maker of antivirus software) showed
that 68 viruses have affected the Mac while 97,467 have affected Windows.
Of those 68, most are a decade old or older and don't directly affect OS X."

That's not to say there won't be one tomorrow, but Mac computers aren't
generally targeted and Macs tend to have fewer security holes than Windows.

I'm currently running a couple of Dells with Red Hat Enterprise Linux and
a several Macs at OS X 10.3.8. All running some version of XEphem.

On 03/22/2005 01:02 PM +0900, Sam Wormley wrote:

I'm currently running a couple of Dells with Red Hat Enterprise Linux and
a several Macs at OS X 10.3.8. All running some version of XEphem.

I'm running XEphem 3.6.3 here on my Slackware 10.1 box. It's a nice
program and is arguably able to do far, far more than I'll ever be able
to do.

trane
--
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
// Trane Francks Tokyo, Japan
// Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 20:49:03 -0500, Davoud wrote:

William Foley:
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=301061

As a troll who knows nothing about the Mac OS, you may be laboring
under the misconception that the Mac OS needs no protection. As the
article you cited makes clear, the Mac OS needs protection, and it has
the protection it needs. That's why there is still not a single virus
-- not one -- or instance of spyware or zombieware et al for Mac OS X.

Davoud

That's because MAC is the underdog, fighting the good fight against
the Evil of Bill Gates. Those social-reject virus writers wouldn't
go after a company that seems to be composed of their kind. Or one
that because of it's diminutive size in the market won't afford them
any publicity.
Oh yeah; I went to see the "Ring 2" on Sunday. They had an Apple in
it. If Apple does nothing else well, marketing via movies and TVs
what they do best. But keep your eyes on Apple; In five years,
they'll be known only as the iPOD company as the computers will likely
be long gone.
-Rich

Sam Wormley wrote:
Pat O'Connell wrote:
Davoud wrote:

William Foley:

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=301061



"At press time research from Sophos (a maker of antivirus
software) showed
that 68 viruses have affected the Mac while 97,467 have affected
Windows.



isn't 68 to 97467 the same ratio as mac to window users





Of those 68, most are a decade old or older and don't directly affect
OS X."

That's not to say there won't be one tomorrow, but Mac computers
aren't
generally targeted and Macs tend to have fewer security holes than
Windows.

I'm currently running a couple of Dells with Red Hat Enterprise
Linux and
a several Macs at OS X 10.3.8. All running some version of XEphem.