Attack code targets zero-day Mac OS flaw

TalkBack 9 of 78:: Next »; « Previous

Thread View
Flat View

typical tic. As usual: It?s always the Apple users who demand raw hard facts like ?you need to be able to back them up. How many is "too many"? Can you give us a statistical comparison based on real-world numbers?? When ever anything negative about Apple products or their users surfaces. Yet when any news about Windows or Microsoft is presented that kind of information is good enough for them at face value, even in questionable circumstances or in cases of pure speculation.

How many is too many? What?s the difference between an apologist and someone who simply honestly disagrees with an opposing view? I can certainly accept that those are reasonable questions and it?s not difficult to give equally reasonable responses to them.

How many is too many?
Too many Apple apologists are the number of Apple apologists we have. I didn?t count or do a scientific study, I?m not saying if we just eliminate ?X? number of Apple apologists then we will have an appropriate number. The key to the particular issue of ?too many? Apple apologists is that far too many surface here on the Zdnet blogs. It is way out of proportion to the real world where I know a couple of long term Apple users who love their hardware but accept with little fanfare that the systems do have some reported flaws and they never try to argue the fact as they feel their Apple hardware is superior even with reported flaws. That seldom happens around here. Any time something is reported on about a vulnerability or exploit in Apple hardware or OSX on Zdnet there are a broad number of Apple apologists who cry ?foul? and demand further, harder proof the vulnerability exists and then they marginalize the report and minimize the potential severity of any flaw or vulnerability in the same way a mother would for claims of problem behavior in her child. When you do see an Apple user say ?thanks for the information? and leave it at that it?s become a shock as it happens so seldom. While its true that if you are an Apple apologist your not likely to recognize the behavior, but you can rely on the fact that everyone else can. There are too many Apple apologists, and way too many around here.

What?s the difference between an apologist and someone who simply honestly disagrees with an opposing view?
Plenty is different, and anyone who is just expressing an honest difference of opinion I am certainly not calling an Apple apologist. The difference between an apologist and an honest difference of opinion, in this case is that the honest difference of opinion will be able to explain why their opinion is different. Other then just saying I don?t believe it. Or, show me more proof. Or, its nothing, lets bash Windows instead. Or, what a nitpicky cheesy claim for a vulnerability, it will never be made to work.

An honest difference of opinion might be explained something like ?this type of claim for a vulnerability fall into this ?particular type? of category that never result in actual use against a target, claims such as this against any OS, including Windows, should never give any rise for any concern because the following facts show they are never made to work?? That would show that, right or wrong, the person was basing their difference of opinion on independent facts that they felt indicated something different. Not just the fact they are starting from the assumption that Apple products are so secure that any report of a vulnerability or exploit is like dead wrong or greatly exaggerated at best. It?s that assumption that leads directly to the excessive overprotective reactions of too many Apple users.

And this jackass notion that because ALL Apple users ?SAY? they know Apples are not perfect gets ALL Apple users off the hook for ?THINKING? Apple products are perfect is a lost cause so give it up. Just because you say you recognize that Apple isn?t perfect doesn?t mean that?s not what you think. What you actually believe comes out in the posts with an obvious apologist mentality, so talking out of both sides of your mouth may seem like a real neat trick to you but its not fooling anyone. ALL Apple users may say they recognize that Apple isn?t flawless, but there are some who appear by the way they defend Apple that they do not ?accept the fact? that Apple isn?t flawless.

And why do I not pick at Windows apologists? Well, there are certainly a few too many Windows ?zealots?. Given the number of problems Windows has always had I fail to understand why anyone would feel it would be a good idea to go so far in the pursuit of their love for Windows. I for one will not only SAY Windows is not flawless, I will say Windows has flaws, plenty of them and you don?t need me to show you proof of that. If you know how to use Google you can spend the next several days examining the proof of that if you like.

But Windows apologists? Who are we thinking of here? Mike Cox? Ha! He hates Windows and spends all his time here belittling Microsoft and Windows through what is usually fairly good satire. Maybe Loverock? Well, he catches enough flack without needing me to hang him out to dry. Sometimes I wonder if he?s even for real. There are some occasional appearances here and there by someone posting in an apologist type way in support of Windows, but you just do not see a lot of it as they are not usually regulars. Most people accept the fact that when a flaw is reported for a Windows OS it is very likely true.

Here is the interesting thing about Mike Cox?s satirical attacks on Microsoft and Windows; this is very important and is quite telling about some of the people posting on these blogs at Zdnet. I have read an awful lot of Mike?s posts and he almost always catches a fish or two who takes him seriously. Considering that if you were to take Mike seriously you would suspect he loves Windows more then life itself and thinks it is perfect. Yet; the fish Mike does catch are almost exclusively NON WINDOWS users who hate his apparent love of Windows and attack him for it. I personally have never seen Mike reel in a Windows user to his ?fanatic fanclub?. Windows users never really seem to bite because they know that Windows isn?t anywhere near as good as what Mike Cox pretends it is and if they do take him as being serious they think he?s a nut and never jump onto his ?we love Windows bandwagon?. It?s always the Windows haters who get fooled into believing he fanatically loves Windows. And that?s because they too are fanatics, just on the opposing side. So do not pretend the fanaticism is not disproportionately slewed against Windows.; Posted by: Cayble Posted on: 11/23/06 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use