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 175537
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Wrong title?
by Governa on Thu 26th Oct 2006 11:09 UTC 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 itís 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

RE[3]: Wrong title?
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 26th Oct 2006 13:02 in reply to "RE[2]: Wrong title?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

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

No, YOU get it wrong. He says CLEARLY that OSX is less secure than OS9. It's RIGHT THERE in plain sight.

"That was something to say for Mac OS 9. It was just so secure," he said. [...] Mac OS X on the other hand is built in Unix and is therefore is more prone to attacks [than OS 9] because people are familiar with the holes in Unix, explained Woznaik."

Governa, it's right there in plain sight: he says OSX is more prone to attacks than OS9. In other words, Woz says that OSX is less secure than OS9. Anyone not affected by the RTF understands that.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Wrong title?
by Governa on Thu 26th Oct 2006 13:59 in reply to "RE[3]: Wrong title?"
Governa Member since:
2006-04-09

> No, YOU get it wrong.

It doesn't need to be an expert to realize Mac OS X is a better OS in every aspect (and I surely include security) than previous incarnations of Mac OS. I don't think Woz meant what you think he meant, and from what I've read, most of the replies seem to express the same feeling as mine.

One thing we agree is that we disagree. No hard feelings.

I still think you're flamebaiting though... ;)

Edited 2006-10-26 14:01

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Wrong title?
by someone on Thu 26th Oct 2006 13:31 in reply to "RE[2]: Wrong title?"
someone Member since:
2006-01-12

Its Unix and it has been around for more than 30 years. Sure its faults are well know.

You know, UNIX actually evolved during these 30 years. Also, most "UNIX" exploits are actually application exploits (eg. SSH exploits, sudo exploits). The few that are kernel based are often specific to a particular kernel (linux exploits will not work on FreeBSD, FreeBSD kernel exploits will not work on NetBSD, NetBSD kernel exploits will not work on OpenBSD and so on and so forth)

The worst thing is not being unsafe, is thinking you're safe when you're not.

That applies to any OS, Mac OS classic included.

Reply Parent Score: 1