So there's no malware in the wild for Mac OS X?
in [UK Mac]
|
Prev: Opera mail
Next: Ejecting drives with Applescript
From: James Dore on 23 Apr 2010 09:26 On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 01:25:25 +0100, Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > James Dore <james.dore(a)new.ox.ac.uk> wrote: > >> Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: >> >> > James Dore <james.dore(a)new.ox.ac.uk> wrote: >> > >> > [snip] >> > >> >> Only an idiot would claim any OS is free of Malware. >> > >> > There's none for the Manchester Atlas that I know of - and it had an >> OS. >> > >> >> You're right. I should have said 'Only a raging pedant would claim any >> OS >> is free of malware'. >> >> HTH, HAND, > > Surely you mean `raving pedant'? And anyway, it'd have to be `raving > pedant or an idiot' with the `or' taking the human grammar meaning of > `and/or'. Dang, you got me there :-D > Rowland. > > P.S. WFT? Just how often does Apple need to update the digital camera > raw compatibility wossname, eh? Seems like only last week I installed > v3.1. What, again?! That's twice this year, more than they've managed in the last two years.... -- James Dore New College IT Officer james.dore(a)new / it-support(a)new
From: David Empson on 23 Apr 2010 09:49 James Dore <james.dore(a)new.ox.ac.uk> wrote: > On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 01:25:25 +0100, Rowland McDonnell > <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > P.S. WFT? Just how often does Apple need to update the digital camera > > raw compatibility wossname, eh? Seems like only last week I installed > > v3.1. > > What, again?! That's twice this year, more than they've managed in the > last two years.... I count four RAW Camera updates between May and December 2008, two in all of 2009, and three so far in 2010. Versions 3 and 3.2 were only 16 days apart (in February), and 3.3 is almost two months later. -- David Empson dempson(a)actrix.gen.nz
From: David Empson on 23 Apr 2010 09:58 David Empson <dempson(a)actrix.gen.nz> wrote: > James Dore <james.dore(a)new.ox.ac.uk> wrote: > > > On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 01:25:25 +0100, Rowland McDonnell > > <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > > > P.S. WFT? Just how often does Apple need to update the digital camera > > > raw compatibility wossname, eh? Seems like only last week I installed > > > v3.1. > > > > What, again?! That's twice this year, more than they've managed in the > > last two years.... > > I count four RAW Camera updates between May and December 2008, two in > all of 2009, and three so far in 2010. Versions 3 and 3.2 were only 16 > days apart (in February), and 3.3 is almost two months later. [Version numbers off by one: last sentence should read "Versions 3 and 3.1 were ..., and 3.2 is ...".] -- David Empson dempson(a)actrix.gen.nz
From: Duncan Kennedy on 23 Apr 2010 10:29 David Empson <dempson(a)actrix.gen.nz> wrote: > David Empson <dempson(a)actrix.gen.nz> wrote: > > > James Dore <james.dore(a)new.ox.ac.uk> wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 01:25:25 +0100, Rowland McDonnell > > > <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > > P.S. WFT? Just how often does Apple need to update the digital camera > > > > raw compatibility wossname, eh? Seems like only last week I installed > > > > v3.1. > > > > > > What, again?! That's twice this year, more than they've managed in the > > > last two years.... > > > > I count four RAW Camera updates between May and December 2008, two in > > all of 2009, and three so far in 2010. Versions 3 and 3.2 were only 16 > > days apart (in February), and 3.3 is almost two months later. > > [Version numbers off by one: last sentence should read "Versions 3 and > 3.1 were ..., and 3.2 is ...".] I get a fairly regular RAW4 update (10.05.8) but it invaribly fails to find a application update. Any idea why it persits? I have Photoshop Elments but not Photoshop on this Mac Mini. -- duncank
From: Chris Ridd on 22 Apr 2010 01:41
On 2010-04-22 02:04:22 +0100, Jaimie Vandenbergh said: > So even the protected machines are at continuous risk, this time from > trusted, permitted updates. On top of the general lousy computer > experience caused by AV scan-caused slowdown, this really shows that > running Windows is a case of lose-lose. I don't remember where I read this, but it amused me: Failure is not an option in Windows, it is built-in. -- Chris |