said by pokesph :

the article said something about 4000+ ssh login attempts over the 38 hour test period... thats nothing new, one of our web facing server see 1500 - 4000 'attempts' a day routinely
of couse none of those got in either..

said by MoeDumb :

At least it's not MACK.

said by MoeDumb :

I bet there are plenty who would like to be first for the bragging rights. It just ain't happening though

said by barnett25 :

And if anything happens, people like you will change the course to overplay its importance - see last week's event.
Last week's test was obviously worthless, as anyone with any knowledge of security will tell you. Why is it that some people hate a computer platform so much that they jump on any opportunity to try to mock and discredit it, even at the cost of supporting and backing erroneous claims?

said by barnett25 :

I dont even own a Mac, but I still recognize good design and give credit where credit is due. And if your posts made a little more sense, and weren't full of bashing maybe I wouldn't make assumptions like I did.

said by kamm :

FYI: being "first" have been passed already in many category. The trick is anytime something happens, Macalots will change the course to downplay its importance or even discredit the news - see last week's events.

said by elias :

It was downplayed for a reason, because the test was not exactly just. He was giving them shell accounts to begin with, meaning they were already inside the machine.

The real test, which was this one, is to not give anything to anyone, and let them break in.

-- Elias

said by MoeDumb :

I bet there are plenty who would like to be first for the bragging rights.

said by barnett25 :

Now if we were talking about viruses I would probably agree with you.

said by Transmaster :

Well they had to change the name to Mack because it isn't a Mac any more. How can they call it a Mac if it has a Intel CPU.

said by ifarrell :

If you were a Mac owner, you'd understand.
It has nothing to do with the CPU.

said by BuriedCaesar :

There you go again with a vague "market share" reference... so I'll say my piece again.

"Market share" is a specious phrase, easily thrown around without context or meaning, as you so deftly have demonstrated. In what context are you using "market share"? Do you mean actual, in-use machines? Machines that logged on to the internet today, or last week, or last month? Numbers of PCs sold over time? During a specific period in time? How about PCs in use that are tracked when they visit some company's website so they can make a buck selling that data to news outlets that then report that, erroneously, as "fact"?

And there are lots of ways to determine a statistical margin of error, but then that depends on the data set you're using (and usually a definition of the referencing term, such as your favorite phrase "market share").

This seems to me to be just a clever attempt to dismiss and deflect attention from what was presented by this second effort to refute the original, flawed "contest." Did you perhaps not RTFA?

And you say the Mac is a "rare platform"? Interesting notion. How did the original story garner such immediate attention if "nobody cares"? Why is this follow-up even being reported here, then? I suspect there are several millions of Mac users out there who would disagree with you about how "rare" this platform really is.

Clearly there are some high emotions tied up in this whole thing - I'm sure other comments in this thread will bear that out. And we both know this won't be going away any time soon. Soon enough there will be another attempt to show that Macs are just as vulnerable as their previously hapless PC cousins, or not - whether you care about it, or not.

said by kamm :

Market share is market share, numers are numbers, despite all these funny mambo jumbo from Macalots to perplex it.

Mac's worldwide market share roughly the statistical error margin range, that's a fact, see »www.macrumors.com/pages/2005/10/···30.shtml

Around 210 million PC were sold in 2005 - compare it to Apple's 'uhh-sooooo-hiiiiigh' 4 million untis overall.
Dell alone sells 10x more than Apple...
And finally, because Macalots love to brag about Apple's growth: Gateway had higher increase in sales than Apple...
Check all the numbers here: »macdailynews.com/index.php/weblo···ts/8291/

PS: to avoid idiotic posts about credibility, I've picked two pro-Mac sites. ;)

said by kamm :

Market share is market share, numers are numbers, despite all these funny mambo jumbo from Macalots to perplex it.

Mac's worldwide market share roughly the statistical error margin range, that's a fact, see »www.macrumors.com/pages/2005/10/···30.shtml

Around 210 million PC were sold in 2005 - compare it to Apple's 'uhh-sooooo-hiiiiigh' 4 million untis overall.
Dell alone sells 10x more than Apple...
And finally, because Macalots love to brag about Apple's growth: Gateway had higher increase in sales than Apple...
Check all the numbers here: »macdailynews.com/index.php/weblo···ts/8291/

PS: to avoid idiotic posts about credibility, I've picked two pro-Mac sites. ;)

said by cableties :

I love that one: Macalots!

Mac Zealots = Macalots!

said by kamm :

...Macalots...

said by BuriedCaesar :

BTW - have you sold your own Mac yet? An Apple dual G5 1.8GHz, wasn't it? (»/metashare/792459)

Just curious, ya know... wouldn't want you to get lumped in with all those "macalots" you're slamming

said by MoeDumb :

Windows fan kamm said Mac fans “are talking out of their bottom parts,” “idiotic,” “utterly clueless,” spout “idiocies,” and have a “racist mind.”

Number of Mac fan insults returned to kamm: 0.

Evidently one person here has a deeper problem.

said by KCrimson :

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black - show me where you applied ANY facts, explained ANYTHING, and please - attempt to deny that you called me names. This is the last time I'll reply to you. You evidently can not control yourself in civilized conversation. Even in the above rant you couldn't control yourself - "childish" and "Macalots" are not endearing terms, nor were any facts explained or documented.