XP vs Mac OS X

[Bob Monsen]

Nico Coesel wrote:

Jon Yaeger <jono_1@bellsouth.net> wrote:


I believe that people who are enamored of XP really haven't had an
opportunity to do much actual work on different platforms. Once they have,
they'll realize quickly that XP is mediocre at best.

For example, compared to OS X:


Wasn't it the Macintosh computer which still didn't had an MMU* when
all other proper computers did? Macintosh is still way behind. OS X is
just an attempt to keep up with the big boys.

* An MMU allows for protected mode which makes each application run
within its own memory area. If one application crashes, the OS can
take it down gracefully.

This was true of the old OS 6. In os 7 (late 80s, early 90s), they
implemented a screwy form of VM, which ran the entire OS, and everything
in it as a single flat process space. The paging was simply to simulate
having more memory. There was no process protection, even for the system
data structures. The 68k macs had an MMU since the original Mac II
(1987), but didn't make use of it until then.

However, those were the dark ages. These days, OS X runs on mach, which
is a microkernel. Thus, it's far more likely to be secure than linux or
other unix macrokernels. It uses the BSD os utilities and programmer
API, and also supports an object oriented shell which one can add code
to dynamically (it's using messaging, like object pascal or smalltalk,
rather than static binding like C++. It is programmed in objective C).

Thus, a macintosh is probably the best commercial unix desktop you can
buy. Not that I'll ever buy another Mac. I'm still pissed off at Steve
Jobs for screwing the clone makers. What an asshole.

-----
Regards,
Bob Monsen

 

[Bob Monsen]

Adrian Tuddenham wrote:

Joel Kolstad <JKolstad71HatesSpam@yahoo.com> wrote:



Does OS X come with anti-virus protection? That would be a tangible benefit.


No it doesn't because there aren't any OSX viruses (there haven't been
any viruses on any Mac OS for many many years).

This used to be true. Not anymore.

The one thing that is in favor of OS X in that regard is that they do
the right thing with respect to root privs. It is often a bit painful to
install software, as a consequence, but you usually don't have to run
the software as root.

However, the protection afforded by that only prevents a virus from
infecting system files. It is still possible to wreak havoc on a user
without root access by manipulating his bin directory and path.

Regards,
Bob Monsen

 

[Bob Monsen]

learning@learning.com wrote:

In <e84e7$42655f2f$42a7d082$21595@msgid.meganewsservers.com>, on 04/19/05
at 12:42 PM, "Bob Eldred" <nsmontassoc@yahoo.com> said:

activity there either. Few of the programs I deal with are available in
Linux. So, what the hell are we supposed to do? Like it or not we are
stuck with Bill Gates.


Yes, but in addition to all the very good, and totally valid points you
raised, let's be stuck with it, but never forget the illegal and unethical
business practices that he employed, the companies that he trampled and
either bought and destroyed, or that he absconded with in order to build
his illegal monopoly.

Apple has 5% of the market because bill gates stole his way to the top,
and walked away with impunity. Could Apple has gotten a bigger share? No
one knows, but we did learn from the trial that they really didn't get a
fair shot at it.

The arguments for and against, are old and tired, and heck, even I have to
use win2000 to make a $, but that doesn't mean we should ever forget how
this all came to be. I don't loose sleep over it, and I don't obsess about
it, but I cannot forget it.

Its one thing to have it forced upon us, but its another to ignore all the
facts. This is not life and death, of course, but as they say in High
Schools, "those who don't remember their history are going to have to
repeat it" It would be way cool if we never forget all that bill gates did
to the industry in order to get us to this point in time. For those who
would say we owe our PCs to bill gates, I will say, 'yes' and he ought to
be taken out for a long afternoon of electroshock therapy to show him our
gratitude.

The Apple ][ came out 4 years before the PC. Apple had a 4 year lead,
and managed to piss it away with various horrible mistakes like the
Apple III and the Lisa. Both of these were badly managed flops. The
original macintosh 128K (I have one in my garage) cost $2400 in 1983,
when you could get a PC for far less. It had a single floppy drive, and
required you to switch the system disk with the application disk again
and again as it was running. They were only sold through "Apple Stores".
It was really wizzy, but there were only two applications for it (both
written by 'Apple', MacPaint and MacWord), and no development
environments. The first commerically available development environment
was "MacForth"... The original mac didn't sell all that well. That high
price tag kept it from winning the market share it deserved.

When windows came out, it was a disaster, shit on a stick, but you could
still run your spreadsheet program. So, what did Apple do? Did they cut
prices and kill it off like they should have done? No, they kept raising
their prices, while at the same time alienating business customers with
a hippy image. Then, they struck back at microsoft in court, with a
multi-year lawsuit attempting to keep microsoft from using the same
ideas they had stolen from Xerox. (Ask Richard Stallman about that).
Once again, they had at least a 4 year lead, this time in the usability
and user interface, but they blew it. They blew their lead by
concentrating on the wrong markets, letting windows gradually be more
acceptable to business users. The mac has never really lost that toylike
quality.

By the time Apple got around to switching over to unix, the original mac
os 9 was pathetic. It still ran in a single monolithic address space. It
used a cooperative scheduler. Much of it's code was emulated 68k code
from a switch over done 5 years before. Keeping it running was a
nightmare due to the crappy file system and outrageously bad disk
management utilities. (I know because a friend was running OS 9 up until
about 6 months ago, and she called me every few months to fix it for
her. She hasn't called since she upgraded.).

Apple had a great product in the Apple ][. It was, arguably, the first
real viable personal computer. However, the Lisa, and then the Macintosh
was basically stolen from Xerox Parc. They sucked as much money as they
could out the idea of a GUI without really innovating themselves. Their
CEO in the 80s, John Scully, made his name selling Pepsi. He knew how to
suck money out of the public, and that is how Apple got by. Their
"Advanced Technology Group" came up with cool things like firewire and
quicktime, but management acted like Xerox before them, and didn't seize
the moment.

Apple has nobody to blame for Windows but itself.

 

[Adrian Tuddenham]

Joel Kolstad <JKolstad71HatesSpam@yahoo.com> wrote:

"Adrian Tuddenham" <poppy.uk@ukonline.invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:1gvacp5.1nr71c31hfpbk0N%poppy.uk@ukonline.invalid.invalid...
Joel Kolstad <JKolstad71HatesSpam@yahoo.com> wrote:
Does OS X come with anti-virus protection? That would be a tangible
benefit.
No it doesn't because there aren't any OSX viruses (there haven't been
any viruses on any Mac OS for many many years).

A simple Google search shows this to be false.

I have no idea what you have found with Google, but for the sake of
accuracy I ought to elaborate on my rather trite initial response:


Macs are supplied without any anti-virus applications and the majority
of them go through life without having any installed. If there were
viruses capable of being propagated through the Mac community, I would
have expected to have come across a mention of them on
'uk.comp.sys.mac' at some time since the introduction of OSX - but I
haven't.

It also shows that there are numerous anti-virus programs available for the
Mac, so unless these folks are defrauding their customers, there must be a few
virii running around...

The occasional enquiry on 'uk.comp.sys.mac' as to whether or not to
install anti-virus software is usually met with the response that it
often causes trouble and does no good because there are no viruses for
it to work on. ...I leave you to draw your own conclusions about the
morals of software vendors.

In the past (OS6 & 7), I believe there were some viruses, but they were
only propagated on floppy discs and only if certain system components
were turned on. PC viruses will infect a Mac if it is running PC
emulation, but only whilst it is in PC mode. I also understand that
some Microsoft documents can be infected in some way and that the Mac
might be able to pass on the infected files without becoming infected
itself. ....but that is as bad as it gets.

I have used OS8.6 without protection for many years and regularly
receive PC viruses in e-mail, they just hang around in the junk folder
until the next tidy-up. I've tried to get them to run just for the
hell of it, and they won't. Many of my correspondents run Macs , none
of them use virus protection (as far as I know) and I have never
received a virus from any of them.


It is impossible to prove a negative - there may be some Mac viruses out
there that I know nothing about - but currently Mac owners and vendors
and repairers in the UK are reporting a complete absence of viruses and
have been doing so for at least the last five years.


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

 

[Rene Tschaggelar]

Rich Grise wrote:

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 18:36:51 +0200, Rene Tschaggelar wrote:

We all know that XP is crap. However a MAC is not an option.
First, all our software runs on Windows.
Second, our compilers are for windows.
Third, additional hardware plugs into a PC.


Or Linux which has all of the above.

Really ?
Which compiler ?

Here are a few:
http://www.idiom.com/free-compilers/

How's debugging, single stepping, the libraries ?
They are hardly as easy to work with as Delphi.
Yes, I know and have Kylix.

which applications ?

Which applications do you want? Gimp for graphics? Koffice, OpenOffice,
TclSpice? Three differend pdf viewers? A handful or more of paint programs,
games, web browsers, newsreaders,

Protel ?

BTW, I do have a linux machine.

Well, then you should already know.

Indeed.



Rene

 

[Guy Macon]

Bob Monsen wrote:

The one thing that is in favor of OS X in that regard is that they do
the right thing with respect to root privs. It is often a bit painful to
install software, as a consequence, but you usually don't have to run
the software as root.

However, the protection afforded by that only prevents a virus from
infecting system files. It is still possible to wreak havoc on a user
without root access by manipulating his bin directory and path.

But can it then wreak wreak havoc on another user? I think not.

With Windows 2000, on the other hand, if yiou do an install and then
try to go to windowsupdate.microsoft.com to get the security patches,
you get infected and start infecting others as soon as you connect
to the internet, far too fast for you to apply the security fixes.
Then the Virii disable your ability to load security fixes. I have
54 saved bug fixes that I have to apply (some as large as 132 MB),
and it takes most of a day to apply them all.

With Slackware linux, setting up a new system involves aswering a
few questions, starting the install, and getting a cup of coffee.

I don't have an OS X box yet, but I bet that it's just as easy.
Strike that; EASIER - I suspect that there are fewer questions
to answer.

 

[TCS]

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 21:44:22 -0700, Bob Monsen <rcsurname@comcast.net> wrote:

Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
Joel Kolstad <JKolstad71HatesSpam@yahoo.com> wrote:



Does OS X come with anti-virus protection? That would be a tangible benefit.


No it doesn't because there aren't any OSX viruses (there haven't been
any viruses on any Mac OS for many many years).



This used to be true. Not anymore.

Can you name a few running around in the wild? Right now there are hundreds
of particularly nasty windows viruses in the wild. Can you even name one
mac virus running around in the wild?

 

[Guy Macon]

TCS wrote:

Bob Monsen wrote:

Adrian Tuddenham wrote:

Joel Kolstad wrote:

Does OS X come with anti-virus protection?
That would be a tangible benefit.


No it doesn't because there aren't any OSX viruses
(there haven't been any viruses on any Mac OS for
many many years).

This used to be true. Not anymore.

Can you name a few running around in the wild? Right now there are hundreds
of particularly nasty windows viruses in the wild. Can you even name one
mac virus running around in the wild?

April, 2005 press release:


DVForge Challenges Symantec CEO To Produce Evidence Of Mac Virus


Today, the CEO of DVForge, Inc. issues the following public challenge
to the CEO of Symantec Corporation.

"This challenge is to John Thompson, CEO of Symantec corporation, and
is based on statements issued by his company in and in response to its
Internet Security Threat Report, issued in March." said Jack Campbell,
DVForge, Inc. CEO, "The report and the several following statements
issued by Symantec representatives very cleverly used vague assertions
and innuendo to promote the idea that an in-the-wild, self-replicating
virus that is effective against the modern Mac OS X operating system
is possible, and is in fact a serious threat to Mac users. If anyone
in my company made such dangerously erroneous public statements, I
would fire them on the spot. Since I cannot fire anyone inside
Symantec, I am specifically challenging Mr. Thompson to either produce
scientifically valid evidence that such a Mac OS X virus is possible,
or to publicly retract his company's claims."

Campbell continues, "The Mac OS X operating system is crafted and
shipped from Apple with a set of security features enabled that make
the infection of the machine by a network based virus, without the
user overriding those features impossible. For Mr. Thompson to support
his company's claims that such a virus actually is possible is
creating substantial financial damage to all companies selling
products or services to Apple computer users, by wrongly spreading
disinformation that lowers the overall sales of Mac systems to new
users. That means his company is costing my company sales of our Apple
accessory products. And, that makes me mad."

"Mr. Thompson, I am calling on you to put up or shut up. Show the
industry your evidence that such an in-the-wild OS X virus is indeed
possible. Or, publicly retract your company's previously stated
position," concludes Campbell.

 

In <slrnd6cms3.faa.The-Central-Scrutinizer@linux.client.comcast.net>, on
04/20/05
at 08:39 AM, TCS <The-Central-Scrutinizer@p.o.b.o.x.com> said: >>>

No it doesn't because there aren't any OSX viruses (there haven't been
any viruses on any Mac OS for many many years).



This used to be true. Not anymore.

Can you name a few running around in the wild? Right now there are
hundreds of particularly nasty windows viruses in the wild. Can you even
name one mac virus running around in the wild?

They are not running around in the wild, because they are basically unable
to take over the MAC, and move themselves around the planet via the net.
That is why there may be MAC viruses, but the damage is minimal, and
hardly makes the news. One windows virus can infect millions of PCs. One
MAC virus is hard pressed to get anyone to notice it beyond the individual
user.

As has been beaten to death already, that is why windows is such a mark
for hackers. Its easy to make windows do all the work for you.

I have used OS/2 for over a dozen years. Never had one virus. A) most
folks won't bother with it because it is not mainstream, and B) its damn
hard to write a virus that will do anything more than muck up on computer.
Hard to get famous when your virus gets in one machine and dies right
there of loneliness....

P.S. A google search is not the best method of verifying stuff, as after
the first 100 hits of almost any subject, the rest are usually quite
obscure, and unrelated to the intent of the search.

JB

 

[Nico Coesel]

Bob Monsen <rcsurname@comcast.net> wrote:

Nico Coesel wrote:
Jon Yaeger <jono_1@bellsouth.net> wrote:


I believe that people who are enamored of XP really haven't had an
opportunity to do much actual work on different platforms. Once they have,
they'll realize quickly that XP is mediocre at best.

For example, compared to OS X:


Wasn't it the Macintosh computer which still didn't had an MMU* when
all other proper computers did? Macintosh is still way behind. OS X is
just an attempt to keep up with the big boys.

* An MMU allows for protected mode which makes each application run
within its own memory area. If one application crashes, the OS can
take it down gracefully.


This was true of the old OS 6. In os 7 (late 80s, early 90s), they
implemented a screwy form of VM, which ran the entire OS, and everything
in it as a single flat process space. The paging was simply to simulate
having more memory. There was no process protection, even for the system
data structures. The 68k macs had an MMU since the original Mac II
(1987), but didn't make use of it until then.

However, those were the dark ages. These days, OS X runs on mach, which
is a microkernel. Thus, it's far more likely to be secure than linux or
other unix macrokernels. It uses the BSD os utilities and programmer
API, and also supports an object oriented shell which one can add code

Aha, so a microkernel must prevent the user from doing anything...
Smart choice because the biggest security risc is not the OS, but the
user.

to dynamically (it's using messaging, like object pascal or smalltalk,
rather than static binding like C++. It is programmed in objective C).

Messaging is way... way slower than calling functions directly.
Besides, you don't have to use static binding. See loading libraries
at runtime, Corba or DCOM.
BTW, I can't see why objective C should make things better. Object
oriented programming is a way to design software. Not a guarantee for
error free or better software.

--
Reply to nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)
Bedrijven en winkels vindt U op www.adresboekje.nl

 

[Rich Grise]

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 19:11:15 -0600, learning wrote:

at 12:41 AM, "Bob Eldred" <nsmontassoc@yahoo.com> said:
[Rich Grise wrote:]
And what apps do you need? Just compile from source!

Oh goodie! you're going to supply me with the source code for SolidWorks
so that I can Compile it myself in Linux, Yeah right! Why didn't I think
of that?

Put me down for Pads PCB and SCH stuff, and the PIC microcontroller MPLAB.

I will pay you via paypal

Uh, can I get back to you on this?

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Bob Monsen]

Nico Coesel wrote:

Bob Monsen <rcsurname@comcast.net> wrote:


Nico Coesel wrote:

Jon Yaeger <jono_1@bellsouth.net> wrote:



I believe that people who are enamored of XP really haven't had an
opportunity to do much actual work on different platforms. Once they have,
they'll realize quickly that XP is mediocre at best.

For example, compared to OS X:


Wasn't it the Macintosh computer which still didn't had an MMU* when
all other proper computers did? Macintosh is still way behind. OS X is
just an attempt to keep up with the big boys.

* An MMU allows for protected mode which makes each application run
within its own memory area. If one application crashes, the OS can
take it down gracefully.


This was true of the old OS 6. In os 7 (late 80s, early 90s), they
implemented a screwy form of VM, which ran the entire OS, and everything
in it as a single flat process space. The paging was simply to simulate
having more memory. There was no process protection, even for the system
data structures. The 68k macs had an MMU since the original Mac II
(1987), but didn't make use of it until then.

However, those were the dark ages. These days, OS X runs on mach, which
is a microkernel. Thus, it's far more likely to be secure than linux or
other unix macrokernels. It uses the BSD os utilities and programmer
API, and also supports an object oriented shell which one can add code


Aha, so a microkernel must prevent the user from doing anything...
Smart choice because the biggest security risc is not the OS, but the
user.

Well, you are right about that, but with regards to root attacks, the
smaller the kernel, the less likely it is for kernel bugs to allow
attacker code to run. That is the most likely means of attack for a
network worm, for example, or a file system exploit: get the kernel to
run the attacker's code somehow.

Tricking the user into clicking the wrong button, or going to a phishing
website is much easier than that, of course.

to dynamically (it's using messaging, like object pascal or smalltalk,
rather than static binding like C++. It is programmed in objective C).


Messaging is way... way slower than calling functions directly.
Besides, you don't have to use static binding. See loading libraries
at runtime, Corba or DCOM.
BTW, I can't see why objective C should make things better. Object
oriented programming is a way to design software. Not a guarantee for
error free or better software.

The point is that objective C has the messaging built in, ala smalltalk.
In C++, methods are implemented using function pointers (or simple
function calls). There is no explicit runtime. This makes it faster, but
prevents you from doing the kinds of things you used to be able to do
with smalltalk, like take a random object, implement a 'less-than'
method, and then use generic sort routines to order lists of them. With
C++, the object would need to be compiled an an ancestor of a 'sortable
object' thingy.

The upshot is that you can dynamically change the behavior of existing
objects without recompiling them, simply by adding methods.

I'm not saying this is better or worse, I'm just describing it.

---
Regards,
Bob Monsen

 

[Bob Monsen]

Guy Macon wrote:

Bob Monsen wrote:


The one thing that is in favor of OS X in that regard is that they do
the right thing with respect to root privs. It is often a bit painful to
install software, as a consequence, but you usually don't have to run
the software as root.

However, the protection afforded by that only prevents a virus from
infecting system files. It is still possible to wreak havoc on a user
without root access by manipulating his bin directory and path.


But can it then wreak wreak havoc on another user? I think not.

Why not? Email applications run with user privs. Getting into an email
application using applescript (or whatever they call it these days)
should be easy. Thus, email trojan horses should be able to spread just
like a windows versions, albeit with different code in them.

With Windows 2000, on the other hand, if yiou do an install and then
try to go to windowsupdate.microsoft.com to get the security patches,
you get infected and start infecting others as soon as you connect
to the internet, far too fast for you to apply the security fixes.
Then the Virii disable your ability to load security fixes. I have
54 saved bug fixes that I have to apply (some as large as 132 MB),
and it takes most of a day to apply them all.

Beats me. Last time I installed 2000, (in 2003, I think) it worked
without a problem. I have used XP, and it doesn't seem to have this
flaw. Are you saying that the windows site is infecting your computer?
That is bad, if true.

With Slackware linux, setting up a new system involves aswering a
few questions, starting the install, and getting a cup of coffee.

That is great. I'm happy for them and you. My recent redhat fedora
install of the system I'm running on seemed pretty easy, but then again,
it required me to compile and install drivers for sound and video, and
to recompile the kernel with NTFS support to access my windows files.
That was annoying.

I don't have an OS X box yet, but I bet that it's just as easy.
Strike that; EASIER - I suspect that there are fewer questions
to answer.

Last time I installed an OSX system, it was painless.

---
Regards,
Bob Monsen

 

[Bob Monsen]

TCS wrote:

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 21:44:22 -0700, Bob Monsen <rcsurname@comcast.net> wrote:

Adrian Tuddenham wrote:

Joel Kolstad <JKolstad71HatesSpam@yahoo.com> wrote:




Does OS X come with anti-virus protection? That would be a tangible benefit.


No it doesn't because there aren't any OSX viruses (there haven't been
any viruses on any Mac OS for many many years).




This used to be true. Not anymore.


Can you name a few running around in the wild? Right now there are hundreds
of particularly nasty windows viruses in the wild. Can you even name one
mac virus running around in the wild?

I recall a newspaper story last year regarding Mac OSX, which said their
'first virus' had arrived. I don't really know much more than this. I
don't own an OSX box, so I don't really follow the news about it.

---
Regards,
Bob Monsen

 

[Guy Macon]

Bob Monsen wrote:

Well, you are right about that, but with regards to root attacks, the
smaller the kernel, the less likely it is for kernel bugs to allow
attacker code to run. That is the most likely means of attack for a
network worm, for example, or a file system exploit: get the kernel to
run the attacker's code somehow.

....which is why QNX is the most bug-free and hardest to attack OS.

 

[Guy Macon]

Bob Monsen wrote:

I recall a newspaper story last year regarding Mac OSX, which said their
'first virus' had arrived.

If true, I would expect to see the story cited as a reply to the
hundreds of challenges that have been posted (some with cash
rewards) to supply a single example of a virus infecting an OS X
computer "in the wild."

 

[Bob Monsen]

Guy Macon wrote:

Bob Monsen wrote:


Well, you are right about that, but with regards to root attacks, the
smaller the kernel, the less likely it is for kernel bugs to allow
attacker code to run. That is the most likely means of attack for a
network worm, for example, or a file system exploit: get the kernel to
run the attacker's code somehow.


...which is why QNX is the most bug-free and hardest to attack OS.

Do you have any numbers on this? They don't have much market share.

---
Regards,
Bob Monsen

 

[Bob Monsen]

Guy Macon wrote:

Bob Monsen wrote:


I recall a newspaper story last year regarding Mac OSX, which said their
'first virus' had arrived.


If true, I would expect to see the story cited as a reply to the
hundreds of challenges that have been posted (some with cash
rewards) to supply a single example of a virus infecting an OS X
computer "in the wild."

I just googled a few:

This one is actually a trojan rootkit:

http://www.anandtech.com/news/shownews.aspx?i=23259
http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,63000,00.html

Here is some other strange malware:

http://www.macintouch.com/opener.html

The real question is why anybody would bother with Mac OSX? It's clearly
more difficult than windows, owing to the reasons I posted elsewhere,
and it's market share is about a tenth of what windows has on the desktop.

Also, most new windows viruses/trojans are small modifications of
existing code. There are very few new ones. Writing a virus from scratch
is pretty hard, I think, even for Windows, particularly a virus that
attacks over the network, like a worm. I don't think I've ever heard of
one of those for windows, although there was a unix worm 15 or 20 years
ago (the 'morris' worm). For windows, they always seem to require some
active participation on the user's part, like incorrect email client
settings, or running executable enclosures, or starting up infected word
documents, or allowing IE to install software. However, I haven't made a
study out of these things, so there may be 'better' technology these days.

---
Regards,
Bob Monsen

 

[Genome]

"Bob Monsen" <rcsurname@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:kZidnVtx7ay-QvrfRVn-uQ@comcast.com...

Guy Macon wrote:
Bob Monsen wrote:


Well, you are right about that, but with regards to root attacks, the
smaller the kernel, the less likely it is for kernel bugs to allow
attacker code to run. That is the most likely means of attack for a
network worm, for example, or a file system exploit: get the kernel to
run the attacker's code somehow.


...which is why QNX is the most bug-free and hardest to attack OS.



Do you have any numbers on this? They don't have much market share.

---
Regards,
Bob Monsen

Don't ask Guy hard questions, he will KillFile you.

DNA

 

[Nico Coesel]

Guy Macon <_see.web.page_@_www.guymacon.com_> wrote:

Bob Monsen wrote:

Well, you are right about that, but with regards to root attacks, the
smaller the kernel, the less likely it is for kernel bugs to allow
attacker code to run. That is the most likely means of attack for a
network worm, for example, or a file system exploit: get the kernel to
run the attacker's code somehow.

...which is why QNX is the most bug-free and hardest to attack OS.

It is also least used. Quite a lot of software runs on it though (I
even got Samba to run on it so I could edit sources in a Windows
machine).

Still, I'm pretty sure QNX will have some security holes in it because
it is optimized for real time processes, not security.

--
Reply to nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)
Bedrijven en winkels vindt U op www.adresboekje.nl