Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 25th Oct 2006 19:29 UTC
Mac OS X Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak says that Apple did not need NeXT, the company that provided the foundation for Mac OS X; he argues that System 7 wasn't nearly as bad as it was made out to be. Wozniak also says that Mac OS 9 was more secure than OS X is now: Mac OS X is built in Unix and is therefore more prone to attacks because people are familiar with the holes in Unix, explained Woznaik. "Some of the holes in Unix are well known. So keeping Firewalls on is more important. And we keep announcing, even our own security fixes, not as many as Microsoft but still we never really had those in the OS 9 days."
Permalink for comment 175344
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Some points.
by Trollaxor on Wed 25th Oct 2006 20:11 UTC
Trollaxor
Member since:
2005-07-28

First, security through obscurity is not a security. The holes exist and are neglected on the assumption that no one will try to exploit them... Until someone exploits them.

Also, there were less possible holes in Classic because it didn't have near the functionality that Mac OS X offers. This is tantamount to selling a rickshaw on how little engine care is involved. What the salesman isn't telling you is that the thing hits 7 MPH and carries two people, tops.

As for Apple continuing on with the Mac OS 7/8/9 lineage, it may not have been as much of a mess as Apple or others made it seem in the late Nineties, but it certainly was not up to the task of doing everything a more "modern" OS could do. BeOS and OPENSTEP had it beat in all of those departments. Shunting in that functionality to Classic would have been a larger headache with about the same amount of risk as the Rhapsody/Mac OS X plan was. So, why not just go to a new platform? And that's exactly what Apple did.

Reply Score: 3