Macs don't have viruses?

[Steve]

Mac OS X, though, is based upon OpenBSD, the authors of which

OK, time to clear up a bit of mistaken perception. I've seen it said
that OS X is based on FreeBSD, or on OpenBSD, or even Linux. I have
reason to believe that much of the early code came from NetBSD. So I
did a search through the OpenDarwin 10.2.6 sources to see how many of
the files mention which BSD.

It might be more correct to say that "OS X is based on *BSD":

find . -type f -print0 | xargs -0 grep -l FreeBSD | wc -l
1903
find . -type f -print0 | xargs -0 grep -l NetBSD | wc -l
1640
find . -type f -print0 | xargs -0 grep -l OpenBSD | wc -l
961

To be sure, there are files that mention more than one of the BSDs:

comm -12 freebsd.list openbsd.list | wc -l
132
comm -12 freebsd.list netbsd.list | wc -l
202
comm -12 openbsd.list netbsd.list | wc -l
182

Not sure where I'm going with this, except that it's a mistake to
say OS X is based on one particular BSD, which implies exclusivity
of the others...

Steve

 

[FromTheRafters]

Hi,

I think the roman used to call that

abacus virus.

When there abacus was infected again by some barbarian virus writer.

If it didn't spread to more abacii, then it wasn't a virus.

 

[Moonlit]

If it didn't spread to more abacii, then it wasn't a virus.

Hmm, and if an abacus user just liked the pattern shown on anothers abacus
and made the same pattern on their own? It is not so different from this
great program you can download (or this great microsoft patch you find in
your mail).

Hey, ignorant users are of all times.

I know there aren't probably any records of that, but that doesn't mean it
didn't happen

Regards, Ron AF Greve.

 

[Grazyna]

FromTheRafters wrote in message

If it didn't spread to more abacii, then it wasn't a virus.

That _is_ a farfetched conclusion. It could still have been a virus, even if
it didn't spread to more abacii - provided it spread to more abaci. Abacuses
shouldn't be left out, either - this one is the only correct form anyway, as
you know. Do try to be more precise next time, please.

 

[FromTheRafters]

Hmm, and if an abacus user just liked the pattern shown on anothers abacus
and made the same pattern on their own?

That would be more like a meme encoded eye-mail.

 

[FromTheRafters]

FromTheRafters wrote in message


That _is_ a farfetched conclusion. It could still have been a virus, even if
it didn't spread to more abacii - provided it spread to more abaci. Abacuses
shouldn't be left out, either - this one is the only correct form anyway, as
you know. Do try to be more precise next time, please.

I'm working on it. ;o)

 

[Chris Mattern]

If it didn't spread to more abacii, then it wasn't a virus.

Abaci

Chris Mattern

 

[FromTheRafters]

Abaci

Octopuses
Abacuses

It's all Greek to me.

Abaci indeed. My dictionary had both abaci and abacuses,
so it's only half wrong. Leaving my only choice for the above
post ~ abacii. ;o)

 

[Chris Mattern]

Octopuses
Abacuses

It's all Greek to me.

Or Latin . The funny part is that octopi is a pseudo-Latin
mistake along the lines of virii that has managed to
worm its way into the dictionary. The word is in fact
Greek and the plural would be, I believe, octopodes
if one was going to go that route. Abaci is good
Latin, though.

Abaci indeed. My dictionary had both abaci and abacuses,
so it's only half wrong. Leaving my only choice for the above
post ~ abacii. ;o)

Chris Mattern

 

[Toon De Backer]

A friend of mine is very proud of his Mac and makes the claim that
Macs don't get viruses.

Is this true? Or is he kidding me?

Fact is that Windows-machines are much more attacked by viruses than
Mac. Whether security is the topic or popularity, or both, I´ll leave
it open.

I feel pretty save at the moment, being in a niche market that doesn´t
interest 99% of the virus developers. I´m not sure whether I should
recommend to switch to Mac; as the niche becomes larger, it might become
more interesting for malicious people, which decreases my safety...

regards,

toon

 

[neopolaris]

Abaci

Chris Mattern

It's not an abacan virii, it's arthritis.

 

[Robert Hull]

It's not an abacan virii, it's arthritis.

LOL. However, you seem to have forgotten that it would not be "an abacan
virii" but "an abacan virius". Only if you have more than one virius
(whatever that is) would you have virii (being the plural of whatever
virius was but definitely never the plural of virus)

 

[Tom]

shawn modersohn wrote:

...and do not have "do not allow attachments that can potentially be virus
etc." setting enabled.

</snip>

I'd put that on, if I were you. Why risk getting 'owned' by the next big M$
exploit?

I assume and am fairly confident this is all the protective measure I need
barring a super sneaky virus from an evil programming mastermind.

</snip>

Why risk it? A lax attitude to security is what causes things like Swen to
be so successful.

Let's also not forget that that some M$ software (Win, OE, IE, for example)
is quite unsecure out-of-the-box and in general the user needs to take the
extra effort to secure it manually.

If M$ apps had a secure setup out-of-the-box, worm/viruses would barely
stand a chance, and then Anti-Virus companies would go out of business, but
that's a whole different topic...

Am I incorrect? Is there a virus out there that as soon as it touches
outlook I am f'd?

</snip>

I wouldn't put it past OE with its notorious past record.

Tom