"Is Apple the new Microsoft?"

[Chaz]

I think I hear Beamtracer streaking down the hall...

[JDex]

Expecting alot of warfare here... mmm, gory byte-shed.

[RobertoOrtiz]

Ohh good God.Heaven help us.

-R

[smoothoperator]

Apple is being stupid about this.
it's all about $. So yes Apple is like Microsoft being a control freak corporation. The're marketing ginius makes people think otherwise.

I'm a mac user by the way.

[mikecarry]

Were the products, the new Ipod super mini, Ipod super duper mini and the new Ipod mini with optional sunroof? Or was it the Ipod pink. The exact same Ipod that's on the market, but now in a hot pink exterior?

[L.Rawlins]

Hahahahahahaa.

Yeah, I have to concur, they do seem to like to dilute their upgrades to the point of farce. :D

[parallax]

I don't see how a piece of fruit has anything to do with CG.

[slaughters]

I don't see how a piece of fruit has anything to do with CG.It's a rendered fruit, so that's OK.

[Para]

I don't see how a piece of fruit has anything to do with CG.

Hmm. An apple a day keeps the doctor away and artists working? ;)

[rjw]

This is typical beahviour for Jobs. Ever since he stole the beginnings of the Mac GUI from Xerox-Parc then turned around and gave Microsoft everything they needed to develop Windows, he has been paranoid about sharing technology. He has disciplined staff in the past for leaking anything on product in development.

It also doesn't hurt that he thinks he's god...

[L.Rawlins]

Xerox also 'gave' them both the concept of the mouse didn't they.

Way back when.

[Beamtracer]

I think I hear Beamtracer streaking down the hall...

Here I am! :)

I'm against what Apple is doing here. It's not worth their while to launch court actions against rumor websites to force them to reveal the sources of their rumors. It will only generate bad publicity.

I think it's bizarre that the legal system allows this sort of thing to happen. If you hear a rumor, you should be allowed to pass it on. Otherwise it's an infringement of free speech.

If Apple or any other company wants to plug information leaks, they should find out who their own employee or subcontractor was who leaked it first. That's the person they should go after. Not some kid with a rumor website.

It reminds me of the McLibel trial, where McDonalds spent tens of millions of dollars on legal action against some poor greenies. In the end it gave McDonalds tens of millions of dollars of bad publicity.

[spakman]

I think the problem lies with OSX's Netinfo manager (a leftover from NeXTStep) and Apple's reluctance to shed light on its inherent security weaknesses.

Apple is more stable and easier to secure than XP, but it's a UNIX box. Prolly 99% of all Mac owners rilly have no idea what they need to do to properly secure their OS - or even the existence of its *NIX core (and most likely never heard of Darwin), due to Apple's famed advertisement of ease of use. (like I said b4 it's *still* easier to secure than XP, but u gotta run thru some steps -which contradicts the general impression apple uses to sell their systems)


As apple becomes more popular, black hats will begin to target the system with greater frequency. On other *NIX distros the vulnerabilities are much better known to the user - by the very nature of the way they have to install the software. By the time one's installed a linux distro, for example, they're very much more *NIX savvy when they finally get the OS to run properly. The end result is linux and other unix flavor users tend to have their holes plugged from the get-go.

This is not so with the Mac. You can find very little info from Apple in regards to vulnerabilities inherent in the Netinfo manager. So one has to use other sources just to figure out how to use and secure the features OSX offers. This belies the "simple" frontend desktop useability which is the cornerstone of Apple's advertising scheme.

They'd prolly sell less Macs if the consumer knew that they would have to learn the *NIX lexicon to rilly be secure. For example, in the book "Mac OS X, The Missing Manual" the authors TOTALLY dropped the ball in how they organized they're chapters. It's not until page 481 that they get to the issues that should have been addressed in chapter one.

Just try to find any info on Mac's site regarding Netinfo manager's vulnerabilities. Luckily apple's phasing Netinfo out - hopefully by the time the Tiger version comes out. But in the meantime, there are huge holes in OSX even though OSX comes with the tools to properly secure them - which ain't the case with an OEM version of XP - which prolly constitutes 99% of all bundled XP machines ( SHAME ON YOU ALIENWARE, DELL, ETC - STICK TO CONSUMER GAME MACHINES) d=^p

just my .02

peace d=^)

[Beamtracer]

Prolly 99% of all Mac owners rilly have no idea what they need to do to properly secure their OS
OK, nice rant about how you think Apple's OS's insecurities and vulnerabilities compare with XP, but what's that got to do with Steve Jobs and the legal fight against those who leaked info on Apple's upcoming products?

[JDex]

OK, nice rant about how you think Apple's OS is insecure and vulnerable, whereas you think XP isn't, but what's that got to do with Steve Jobs and the legal fight against those who leaked info on Apple's upcoming products?

Nice of you to omit the opening sentence of his statement, clearly illustrating that OSX is more stable and easier to secure than XP

You are simply marvelous... bravo.

[leigh]

Chill out guys.

[Bonedaddy]

Man, this thread went from zero to off-topic in what, two posts?

I don't blame Apple for doing this overly much. They're big and getting bigger, and it is very dangerous to have people leaking your plans -- especially when you're somewhat of an industry innovator. If pics for the mac mini had been leaked several months ahead of time, there would be PC competitors ready at launch.

They could have a bit more tact in their methods, hold more of a conversation with the website(s), but I don't fault a company for trying to plug its leaks. So Jobs runs a tight ship, what's new?

[Meshbuilder]

I don't like what Apple is doing but Apple isn't the real problem here. The "LAW" that let them do this is the problem.

I always read threads like this when people blame the evil big company for suing someone.

Write a thread about the problem with US Law system or how to change it to protect the little people.

And yes, Apple is just a big company that do everything to earn money as any other company like Microsoft, MC Donalds etc. Just because people like their products doesn't make them a "good" company.

What has this to do with CG news anyway?

[spakman]

OK, nice rant about how you think Apple's OS's insecurities and vulnerabilities compare with XP, but what's that got to do with Steve Jobs and the legal fight against those who leaked info on Apple's upcoming products?

These posts are coming to you from my powerbook, which I love, an emotion I never had for my Alienspyware "game development" laptop. I no longer use OEM XP boxes for home use because OSX is probably the best OS out there (okay, three-way tie between Darwin, redhat, and SuSE)

I was just positing one of the possible reasons for Jobs' actions. So to directly address this thread in a manner to your liking, (tho I thought my previous post's obvious yet implicit nature was on-topic from the get-go), I'll try to assuage your indignence with the following:

Jobs actions could definitely hurt apple. The core system, Darwin, is opensource. That paradigm cultivates a sense of community between volunteers and manufacturers - a community of proud paid and unpaid coders who've helped apple develop one heck of an OS.

These free-coders (mostly just a bunch of whitehats) don't like restrictions put on them. I mean they're hackers, with a hacker mentality. These restrictions Jobs wants don't exist in the linux community. That's why the distros are so kick-ass. If the Darwin whitehats get turned off by this new "Gates-like" attitude, where they can't share their findings as they see fit, they'll stop checking code - which is bad for Apple, as Apple would be reduced to in-house manpower alone for quality control maintence. Jobs ends up losing his greatest asset - the commradery mindset of the opensource community, which has far more fact checkers than Jobs could ever hope to hire. And those he does hire, most likely are in it for the paycheck, whereas the opensource community is in it for the joy of doing something good for people for - would you believe it? - for free. (similar to the wikipedia peeps).

Jobs is making a bad move with a good product, one free of pre-installed, out - of - the - box spyware, He'd lose the "we're in it together" mentality within the opensource community. This can only lead to stunted development of the Darwin distro - kinda like the situation Microsoft is in. I mean how many whitehats *like* microsoft and their proprietary mindset? How many whitehats spend time trying to improve XP v.s. the number of blackhats and bundleware developers who slave to sabotage Wintel systems either illegally or through sanctioned spyware installations on a factory fresh OEM XP box? Putting barriers up on an opensource community can only harm Jobs in the long run.

I hope my direct answer satisfies you. Apologies for my previous attempt to profer one of the possible reasons behind Jobs' actions.

Perhaps I should have just posted a witty one liner, devoid of any substance, to have supplicated you.

peace d=^)

[spakman]

But in the meantime, there are huge holes in OSX even though OSX comes with the tools to properly secure them - which ain't the case with an OEM version of XP - which prolly constitutes 99% of all bundled XP machines ( SHAME ON YOU ALIENWARE, DELL, ETC - STICK TO CONSUMER GAME MACHINES) d=^p


I see the misunderstanding in that last paragraph. What I meant by "that ain't the case with XP", is that an OEM XP box *does not* have the tools to fix their holes built into their systems. In fact, they go out of their way to keep the end user "administrator" *LOL* from using tools to fix their subtrefuge. Mac and OSX does not use this merchandising model. Right out of the box, a Mac is not only more secure and stable than OEM XP, but also comes included wth the tools to fix pretty much any vulnerability the root user and/or admin user may come across. Most folks just don't realise this, or are even aware.

peace out, bro. Stay strong. d=^)

[Para]

I see the misunderstanding in that last paragraph. What I meant by "that ain't the case with XP", is that an OEM XP box *does not* have the tools to fix their holes built into their systems. In fact, they go out of their way to keep the end user "administrator" *LOL* from using tools to fix their subtrefuge.

Just to clarify this to myself, which tools you are referring to? I know that Windows is basically "We make it, you use it." kind of an operating system and I'm fine with that but I also like to know what I'm missing :)

[richcz3]

On Topic
Apple is not acting like Microsoft. MS does march legal papers toward web sites like www.neowin.net (http://www.neowin.net/) and http://bink.nu/ for leaking detailed information on Longhorn builds/screens as well as internal MS program initiatives but they have never hauled any of them into court even after multiple lapses.

Unlike MS, Apple has a carefully crafted well marketed image it wants to protect. As much as Steve Jobs wants to paint a counter culture, think different establishment, he unwittingly does so in a very authoritorian way. Apple is fast becoming the 1984 commercial that launched the Macintosh.

[spakman]

Just to clarify this to myself, which tools you are referring to? I know that Windows is basically "We make it, you use it." kind of an operating system and I'm fine with that but I also like to know what I'm missing :)


Gosh, there's the console and the terminal (the bash box), chmod, sudo, su, easy to get to SUID, SGID controls, and the rest of the *NIX apps and commands that come with the core and BSD subsystem. The option to use UFS formatting instead of HFS+ and/or HFS+ (journalled), man pages explaining the various *NIX tools, The fact that you can get to /root level access - if it's ur box - (or if u exploit Netinfo's weakness). u can even change permissions through the GUI interface of the Get Info command if you've got Admin privileges),Then there's Open Directory's Open LDAPv3 frontend, IPv6 implementation... Kerberos over Netinfo, Osiris, the ability to jail Apache if it's been compromized, the ability to maually configure the default firewall to prevent outgoing traffic as well the GUI controlled incoming trafffic, (tho not thru the GUI, thru ipfw), the keychain... et al. The easy logging capabilites. The built in IP portscan, traceroute, and whois functions... (which makes the mac a nice little gui enabled blackhat box, if one were so inclined), firmware passwords, encrypted .sparsedisk images --- the list is just too long.

(to prove a point, I broke into my brother in law's wifi network with my Mac's built in tools just two nights ago, and got a record of all his ethernet MAC addresses - which I could then spoof if my hat were black. He freaked and is no longer broadcasting his SSID, but that's another story that a Wintel box can do too, just not with so nice a GUI interface...)

The point is, if you know about them the OSX tools are there ready for you to use. You don't have to fight the deceptive XP services and permissions that come with OEM XP boxes which delete whole menu options for the sake of the spyware such companies as Alienware install as part of their corporate mandate. (avoid bundleware at all costs. It ain't cheap cos it was bought in bulk. It's cheap, cos those agreement windows u click thru have little vague clauses legally permitting them to track u.

Though apple doesn't advertise it, the structure is straight forward and pretty consistent with other linux and unix distros. And there's no spyware attached. The only way I know how to get a spyware free Wintel box is to make my own pc and spend the $300 for XPPro boxed edition for a truly clean install. (if u buy the upgrade, it doesn't remove the spyware that came with the rest of the bundleware on ur OEM box).

And for gosh sakes, if you own a Mac, and haven't done so already, go to utilities/Netinfo manager, enable root, give it a password and then disable it pronto. You'll still be able to do stuff via admin (which does sudo and su commands automatically, so u don't have to use the terminal all the time. Butf somebody gets into your Netinfo directory (info that is sent in the clear, BTW), they can change other users passwords all the way up to root! Scary sh!t, but fixable.

anyways... peace d=^)

[Beamtracer]

The core system, Darwin, is opensource. That paradigm cultivates a sense of community between volunteers and manufacturers
Sorry spakman. I didn't realize from your first post that you were referring to Apple's relationship to the open source community. I understand now.

[slaughters]

These posts are coming to you from my powerbook, which I love,...<SNIP of a very long post>Cool,

My "indignence" feels "assuaged" already :)

[Para]

spakman:
That's a nice list. I must confess that I lied to you - I am after all trained helldesk/bofh ;) That's why I now also break down the list you just gave to me in a walkthru kinda way.

First, the console. Yeah, at its current state the Windows command shell isn't very interesting, all it does is that it basically replicates the commands available in DOS 10-15 years ago. But that was then and now we have "Monad". to explain what it is, check out these two videos: Monad explained (http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=25506) and Monad demonstrated (http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=25915). I don't know how much of the stuff you said Monad covers but I think it covers at least some of them.

Multiple file systems is always a bit of a two-edged sword. Of course it's a good thing that there is a wide support for "everything" but on the other hand it causes too much disparity between individual computers if there isn't one or two major systems which are most commonly used. For example what Microsoft has done with Windows and file systems is that they have usually kept two file system options for local files: The other is basically the one that was the very new when the previous version of Windows came out and the other is the one that's considered new. For example with WinXP there's support for FAT32 and NTFS5. After reading about ext2/ext3 and reiserfs couple of years ago I got the "Why?" feeling. Just because there is an option for an option doesn't mean it should be supported.

For man pages(I must say that I smirk every time I hear those mentioned) most of the programs have their own help files, Windows comes with its own Help (can be found from Start -> Help so it's not even hidden anywhere). There's also "help" command in normal command console in both Win 2k and XP. I know "man" is short for "manual" but I'd still like to ask for "help" instead of a "manual" :P

I don't understand your /root level access argument nor permission changing thru GUI. The latter is very easy to do in Windows - has always been - and the former doesn't mean anything to me but as far as I know, as an admin you can do basically everything and anything with your box.

Quick search on MSDN (http://www.msdn.com) proved what I thought - Windows have had LDAP support for years. Same goes for IPv6.

Isolating programs doesn't exist yet in a way I think you mean it but as with XPSP2 was advertised Windows nowadays takes a lot of precautions in order to avoid the problem of getting programs compromised. For the internet traffic related things (firewall, net limiting etc.) MS had to do a bit of a trade-off for publicity: Just think what the anti-MS people would have said if MS had given the users a "perfect" firewall thus destroying the whole software firewall industry on Windows. Thanks to the antitrust thing MS wasn't very keen to try how the court would have seen it too since as a big company you can't just decide to knock down a whole sub-industry without consequences. For limiting net speeds (per-computer or per-program) it's quite possible with 3rd party tools, NetLimiter (http://www.netlimiter.com/) being one of the most commonly used ones.

By the way, portscanning is actually illegal (some sort of pre-emptive law based on the the assumption that there's no good reason for anyone to portscan if they're not searching for vulnerabilities to exploit which is of course very illegal). For traceroute there's "tracert" command. whois info can't be obtained using the current command console but I think Monad can do that. Firmware passwords can be changed/cracked just as easily as on any other computer that has one - no matter what kind of a computer it is. File encryption can be done with external physical dongles which I'd prefer for all my stealthy black hat activities since hardware > software.

I blame all the typos on the fact that I'm very tired at the moment.
:wip:
:eek:

[spakman]

spakman:
That's a nice list. I must confess that I lied to you - I am after all trained helldesk/bofh ;) That's why I now also break down the list you just gave to me in a walkthru kinda way.

First, the console. Yeah, at its current state the Windows command shell isn't very interesting, all it does is that it basically replicates the commands available in DOS 10-15 years ago. But that was then and now we have "Monad". to explain what it is, check out these two videos: Monad explained (http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=25506) and Monad demonstrated (http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=25915). I don't know how much of the stuff you said Monad covers but I think it covers at least some of them.
[QUOTE=Para]
Multiple file systems is always a bit of a two-edged sword. Of course it's a good thing that there is a wide support for "everything" but on the other hand it causes too much disparity between individual computers if there isn't one or two major systems which are most commonly used. For example what Microsoft has done with Windows and file systems is that they have usually kept two file system options for local files: The other is basically the one that was the very new when the previous version of Windows came out and the other is the one that's considered new. For example with WinXP there's support for FAT32 and NTFS5. After reading about ext2/ext3 and reiserfs couple of years ago I got the "Why?" feeling. Just because there is an option for an option doesn't mean it should be supported.

Well reiserfs and ext/3 are both journalled, for easier auditing and forensics. So is HFS+ (journalled) - OSX'x preferred format. They also can have many more logical partitions than an XP formatted disk, so it's easier to isolate and nullify a hack-in. Tho the reiserfs cares more about the metadata than the actual data, so I kinda like ext/3 better. They also aren't propietary formats like NTFS is (tho I dunno about NTFS5).

I'm sure monad's cool. My beef with XP isn't XP. It's OEM XP. Two very different approaches. But you're right, multiple file systems can open a ball of worms, but it can also work to one's advantage if used right. (which I think was my earlier gripe about OSX having some flaws in the way they advertise their product)


For man pages(I must say that I smirk every time I hear those mentioned) most of the programs have their own help files, Windows comes with its own Help (can be found from Start -> Help so it's not even hidden anywhere). There's also "help" command in normal command console in both Win 2k and XP. I know "man" is short for "manual" but I'd still like to ask for "help" instead of a "manual" :P

Yeah, but the man pages work. U do what they say and it gets done. Not so on an OEM XP box. It's so nice to follow those help pages only to find the menu selection in the help file doesn't exist on your OEM XP box (see my next entry below).


I don't understand your /root level access argument nor permission changing thru GUI. The latter is very easy to do in Windows - has always been - and the former doesn't mean anything to me but as far as I know, as an admin you can do basically everything and anything with your box.

Not true, I've got some xml files I wasn't supposed to find regarding the MMC that went something like this:

if administrator =>1 show these menu options
if administrator =>2 show these menu options
if administrator =>3 show these menu options
if administrator =>4 show these menu options

I found that xml via a dualboot SuSE, OEM XP box I was configuring. They only showed up via linux. I can't show the actual files because there are legal clauses in them. I only made it to XP admin level 4 once and the menus had more options. I don't know if admin levels on XP go higher.


Quick search on MSDN (http://www.msdn.com) proved what I thought - Windows have had LDAP support for years. Same goes for IPv6.

I was more refering to the ease of use in the way u can configure LDAPv3 on an OSX box. I know XP has LDAP. I'm just not sure how easy it is to switch to the v3 flavor.


Isolating programs doesn't exist yet in a way I think you mean it but as with XPSP2 was advertised Windows nowadays takes a lot of precautions in order to avoid the problem of getting programs compromised. For the internet traffic related things (firewall, net limiting etc.) MS had to do a bit of a trade-off for publicity: Just think what the anti-MS people would have said if MS had given the users a "perfect" firewall thus destroying the whole software firewall industry on Windows. Thanks to the antitrust thing MS wasn't very keen to try how the court would have seen it too since as a big company you can't just decide to knock down a whole sub-industry without consequences. For limiting net speeds (per-computer or per-program) it's quite possible with 3rd party tools, NetLimiter (http://www.netlimiter.com/) being one of the most commonly used ones.

er, isolating apps does exist, at least on *NIX machines.


By the way, portscanning is actually illegal (some sort of pre-emptive law based on the the assumption that there's no good reason for anyone to portscan if they're not searching for vulnerabilities to exploit which is of course very illegal). For traceroute there's "tracert" command. whois info can't be obtained using the current command console but I think Monad can do that. Firmware passwords can be changed/cracked just as easily as on any other computer that has one - no matter what kind of a computer it is. File encryption can be done with external physical dongles which I'd prefer for all my stealthy black hat activities since hardware > software.

u should check out the "Network Utility" (in the utilities folder) that comes with OSX. It's got a beautiful novice hacker friendly interface. Lesse, it's got: Info; Netstat; Appletalk (blech); Ping; Lookup; Traceroute; Whois; Finger; and Port Scan all lined up and ready to use, like I said, white, grey, or blackhat style, if one were so inclined.

Anyway, both systems have their problems. But there's no way anyone can say with a straight face that XP is secure out of the box, or easy to make secure. Sure you've got the frontend "show hidden files" you can check or uncheck. But that doesn't take into account the countermanding permissions on OEM XP boxes that still hide files regardless of frontend settings.

I just went thru all this with Alienware, and then found this stuff on my dell. Go check out http://www.hackinthebox.org. There's a good article in there about OEM XP boxes and their allegence to spyware riddled bundle ware.

That's why I'm a *NIX cat now. U learn one, U get the jist of all the others - without the doubt that the vendor is trying to pull the wool over ur eyes the way OEM XP does.

This still does little to help Apple's "simple" image that attracts so many *NIXless peeps.

So as to the original subject, what Jobs is doing sucks major caca a$$. He may very well blow a good thing. And I'll end up on an AMD nonexecutable stack SuSE box. For now OSX, with some work (tho much less than it takes on XP), is a solid platform I feel comfortable with.

peace d=^)

[spakman]

...and I gotta say that excuse about the reasons behind XP's firewall setup is laughable, and pretty sorry for the poor shmuck who just bought their first computer and see's that it offers a built-in firewall that he doesn't know isn't secure at all. How nice to have all his private data flowing out to who knows where, just to hold up an industry that should never have been created in the first place if Microsoft just took care of their own sh!t.

L8rs, yo d=^\

[t-man152]

although I understand that Apple could lose money. if people hear a rumor about a g5 ibook or a new generation of ipods coming out. people are going to stop buying their current line up and wait for their new one.

I think that if apple has a problem with this they need to fix the problem internally and not go after people who just report the info that apple leaked.

edit ohh and sorry about being on topic I see that its not very popular around here

[Per-Anders]

well, i don't see much of a problem to be honest.

firstly it's normal business practice to try and protect your assets and maintain secrecy around your very expensive research and development. if a company didn't do those things and specialised in innovation, it wouldn't have any product to sell, their competitoris would simply get the jump on them at every turn, and/or it could undermine their market value. witness NDA's, etc and the furore over the leaked HL2 code.

secondly if those sites are gaining insider information from sources that have signed nda's then they're simply breaking the law. these laws are in place to protect the company, it's competitors and it's shareholders, and in the long term the overall economy as we live in a "free market". it stops people playing the market.

third it's in the interests of those consumers who care about the products and the claims made on these sites to know who is making such claims. how much credence would you give to someone posting rumours on cgtalk without any source?

so honestly, enough of the zealots already. the opening post and thread title is frankly flame bait and i don't really understand why this is even in the news section (seeing as it's quite old news, and it's clearly more "oppinion" than news).

[t-man152]

mdme_sadie I under what your saying but what is going on is they are suing people who have heard and posted these rumors. these people do not have NDAs or anything If they see this as a problem they should try to prevent it not prevent others from sharing information that they carelessly let out.

[Beamtracer]

It's more of an issue than just a company protecting its intellectual property.

It's about free speech. It's about the legal definition of who is a journalist. It's about protecting small websites and online publishers and giving them the same legal rights as the multinational media giants.

[Para]

er, isolating apps does exist, at least on *NIX machines.

Umm, that's what I meant. Apparently forgot to add that on Windows machines such thing doesn't exist to my knowledge yet. As for OEM XP I haven't "experienced" any of the problematic installs created by big hardware vendors like Dell since I've built my own computers instead of buying a ready-to-go-package from someone. It takes more time but I sure do what gets installed and what doesn't plus it's a great excuse to stay inside ;)

[CGTalk Moderation]

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.