> Apple's model customer is one who upgrades often. If you want solid support for old products, stick with Microsoft, and accept that their products can be clunkier because of deliberate choices to maintain backwards-compatibility.
> To be fair, OS X updates are free and usually run well even on 5+ years old hardware. OS X has kinda gone the way of Chrome, with most users on the newest version.
> While this is a significant vulnerability, I don't think the article is correct when it calls it a 'backdoor.' The term backdoor typically implies something that was intentionally left to allow illicit access, and while this is a significant bug, I don't see anything to indicate that's the case here.
> Title is a little generous about "hidden", the exploit revolves around API & Framework used to power the parts of the control panel, and its authorization scheme being broken.
> Smells like an oversight to me. Some new developer got assigned to implement or tweak the SSH enabling switch (or whatever), and this was their solution, which never got reviewed.
> Referring to Snow Leopard now not secure > Still pretty much the best OSX.
> Among other things upgrading (to 10.10.3) will do, it'll fix the issue in the article.
So, it's my comment you quoted questioning whether this can be called a backdoor.
I don't intend that to be apologetic for Apple. I called it a 'significant vulnerability' but at the end of the day, it's a privilege escalation like those that have come before and will likely continue to be found occasionally, regardless of OS. I don't see what's apologetic about acknowledging a significant vulnerable while questioning whether it should be called a backdoor.
If you want to talk about Apple's response - I find it concerning that they aren't backporting the fix.
Most of those are people giving fairly reasonable benefit of the doubt, no apologism. But I suspect you're probably about as biased against Apple as the people you're assuming are biased towards Apple.
Oh your really off base.. I am MUCH MORE biased against Apple. You know those Linux users who hate on Microsoft? I am the Linux user who HATES Apple since I was first lied to by Apple in 1983 (Color Mac coming in the next year, wasn't till March 1987) (Color Mac will destroy Amiga 1000 in 1985)
I have never seen Apple as being honest or making products for me as a nerd. So I live mostly in Linux nowadays.
A biased person isn't credible? What did I say that was factually wrong or personal opinion. I don't like Apple products (Locked down and no fun for a hacker and expensive)
I have no credibility since I don't like a company? What about the opposite people who like the company?
Credible people are always upfront with their biases. I never trust anyone that says they are neutral.
Of course not. You're admitting and prideful that you aren't going to look at things fairly, and your complaints are therefore unhelpful, naive and very likely wrong to boot. People who simply like Apple are not uncredible, though a fanboy would be, for similar but opposite reasons. Credible people are aware of their biases and strive to overcome them. When you embrace your biases like you have, you're just offering some bullshit with a disclaimer that it's bullshit. At least you have honesty going for you.
Well the answer to that is when someone says something you call for proof. You don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. That's what I do with David Pouge and Walt Mossberg. But I usually get my news from Tech Press that has been black balled by Apple.
At least you're honest about it. Most who feel similarly will coat it in a thin veneer of pretend equal-handedness and categorically deny any emotional investment.
> To be fair, OS X updates are free and usually run well even on 5+ years old hardware. OS X has kinda gone the way of Chrome, with most users on the newest version.
>Apple's model customer is one who upgrades often. If you want solid support for old products, stick with Microsoft, and accept that their products can be clunkier because of deliberate choices to maintain backwards-compatibility.
He was rebutting that regular upgrades are somehow a type of revenue to apple since they are free and work on some previous generation hardware. How is that apologetic?
It sounds apologetic to him because he's more interested in tribalism than business or technology. It's not unlike much religious fundamentalism- the pursuit of truth takes a back seat to the pursuit of feeling like you're right about things, especially if it means you get to hate a caricature of some other group of people and blame some of your personal disappointments on them.
A similar force seems to drive politics, or at least motivates disturbingly huge blocs of voters. :(
Wait saying that 5 years hardware support is to short is wrong and that yearly updates in OS makes me into a religious Anti-Apple Zealot and Tribalism?
I don't like Apple's business practices, hard to hack devices and technology philosophy doesn't mean I am Tribal.
How is it good business sense to have 5 years support for hardware? I have much older hardware doing very productive things also my non-profit couldn't afford to upgrade every desktop every five years and update every desktop's OS every year.
