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."
Thread beginning with comment 175445
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Wrong title?
by Governa on Thu 26th Oct 2006 01:32 UTC
Governa
Member since:
2006-04-09

The title of this article is soooo wrong!! Sorry to say but this feels like an OS News flamebait.

Lets break it in 4 small parts:

1- Most of the crashes in OS7 were because of Microsoft's IE even if it wasn't running:

QUOTE:
"OS 7 crashes were linked to running Microsoft Internet Explorer, rather than the Apple operating system(...)those who used alternative browsers, such as Netscape, were experiencing no problems(...)IE did not have to be running for the crashes to happen"

2- Woz never says OS9 is more secure than OS X, not once! He only says he has warned Steve Jobs that Apple didn't need the huge amount of money needed to buy NeXT.

QUOTE
"we didn’t really need a new operating system for that amount of money involved in the purchase of NeXT"

3- But he does compare both OS9 and OS X, just to say the oposite of the article's title:

QUOTE:
"Looking back it’s a good thing we have a BETTER MORE STABLE MORE COMPLETE BETTER operating system, from the ground up"

Again:
- Better
- More stable
- More complete
- Better operating system

4- The only thing he says is that Unix is more prone to attacks because people are familiar with the holes in Unix. Well duh! But Unix is around for more than 30 years, this is a proven base for any 'internet ready' Operating System. The core of OS X is NOT made of unproven technologies!

5- The rest of the article is just boring stuff about his past experiences, talking about the type of person who seeks to break into an operating system and such.

Apple's project 'Copland' gave us nothing. They were just spending money and resources while Win95 was eating Apple's market share. Gil Amelio and even Ellen Hancock realized the situation was hopeless. So they did the right thing. NeXT was bought, Steve Jobs returned more matured to his 'home' and Apple in right on track.

Again, the only reason I can find for such a bad chosen title is, I'm afraid to said, that this is just a flamebait. Even the original article only says 'Apple didn't need NeXT' - Woz.

Edited 2006-10-26 01:38

Reply Score: 4

RE: Wrong title?
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 26th Oct 2006 08:01 in reply to "Wrong title?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Woz never says OS9 is more secure than OS X, not once!

Oh? He clearly says OS 9 was more secure than OSX:

"Not that Mac OS 9 - the operating system that predated OS X - was not stable. According to Wozniak. “That was something to say for Mac OS 9. It was just so secure,” he said, denying that the security was based on the fact that being a minority operating system meant that nobody was interested in attacking it. He explained: “Mac OS 9 was differently constructed to anything else. It wasn’t because it was minor and unknown.”

Mac OS X on the other hand is built in Unix and is therefore is 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."


I see the distortion field is still up and running ;) .

Edited 2006-10-26 08:11

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Wrong title?
by Governa on Thu 26th Oct 2006 11:09 in reply to "RE: Wrong title?"
Governa Member since:
2006-04-09

I think you got it all wrong. Ok, he does say Mac OS X is more prone to attacks. Its Unix and it has been around for more than 30 years. Sure its faults are well know. OS 9 was not an 'internet OS' and security via obscurity is no security at all. The worst thing is not being unsafe, is thinking you're safe when you're not.

He does compare OS9 to OSX when he says that, and I quote again "Looking back it’s a good thing we have a better more stable more complete better operating system, from the ground up"

Once again, comparing to OS9 in Woz's own words, OSX is:
- Better
- More stable
- More complete
- Better operating system

No distortion whatsoever. I really think you got it all wrong.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Money stinks???
by s_groening on Thu 26th Oct 2006 11:17 in reply to "Wrong title?"
s_groening Member since:
2005-12-13

2- Woz never says OS9 is more secure than OS X, not once! He only says he has warned Steve Jobs that Apple didn't need the huge amount of money needed to buy NeXT.

QUOTE
"we didn’t really need a new operating system for that amount of money involved in the purchase of NeXT"



What you're actually saying is that Apple did not need the money needed to buy NeXT.
This effectively means that in your interpretation, Apple had way too much money and that they didn't need it...

Where exactly does the quote state that??

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Money stinks???
by Governa on Thu 26th Oct 2006 13:53 in reply to "Money stinks???"
Governa Member since:
2006-04-09

> What you're actually saying is that Apple did not
> need the money needed to buy NeXT.
> This effectively means that in your interpretation,
> Apple had way too much money and that they didn't
> need it...

Well my english is not perfect, but you got my point. I've quoted what I meant. ;)

Maybe you prefer to continue this discussion in my mother tongue? ;)

Reply Parent Score: 1