Oxford <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote in
news:colalovesmacs-DE8273.21025817102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net:
> "IMHO IIRC" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.NOSPAM> wrote:
>
>> > 3) the iPhone is on all of the top 5 carriers within 2 years.
>> >
>> > 4) Apple and Google team up and buy their own part of the wireless
>> > spectrum and do an end run around all cell carriers.
>> >
>> > 5) and many more...
>> >
>> > most likely is No. 3 of course.... if those companies can modernize
>> > enough to support Visual Voice Mail and very high bandwidth
>> > devices.
>>
>> Why do you need high bandwidth? I thought everything was done with
>> WiFi.
>
> 80% of it is, but even AT&T choked when all the iPhones first came
> online. The data infrastructure of cell firms is way behind firms like
> Apple.
Apple has no daya infrastructure, moron.
> They hide behind slow 2.5 / 3G networks currently, but once
> they get a taste of unlimited 802.11g they are going to falter unless
> they plan for the future. They are geared for tiny sized voice
> transmissions, not huge data loads that come with all the wonderful
> features of the iPhone.
Oh, little Oxturd- how little you know about the world. No company on
the face of the planet is backing an unlimited 80211g initiative. Not
even Stevie Jobber is blowing that horn.
>
>> How long does ATT have an exclusive on the iPhone in the US? I
>> thought it was 5 years.
>
> Yes, it's 2 years. So it's hard to say what will happen in 18 months
> of course.
No it's not- iPhone swill be obsolete.
> Steve has the upper hand now, so he can play ATT like a
> fiddle for better pricing,
No he can't
> or play them off Verizon which is desperate
> for the iPhone contract, etc.
Except that Verizon turned away Apple once already and already has a
superior product lineup with better pricing and finctionality.
>
>> Also the iPhone is only GSM - is Apple also designing one that is
>> CDMA?
>
> currently CDMA is like bad cable internet, it's good for the most part
> but it's shared and at peak times your calls sound like crap.
And holds the lion's share of the US market, hands down. That's why
Apple won't develop one- they always use second rate technology.
Oxford <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote in
news:colalovesmacs-1CB861.21065717102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net:
> "Kevin Weaver" <kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> >> most likely is No. 3 of course.... if those companies can
>> >> modernize enough to support Visual Voice Mail and very high
>> >> bandwidth devices.
>> >
>> > Why do you need high bandwidth? I thought everything was done with
>> > WiFi. How long does ATT have an exclusive on the iPhone in the US?
>> > I thought it was 5 years.
>> > Also the iPhone is only GSM - is Apple also designing one that is
>> > CDMA?
>> >
>> They did. But Verizon being 1st in line for the iphone, shot the
>> iphone down. Then they got AT&T
>
> yes, that will likely go down as one of the top 25 biggest business
> blunders of the last 50 years or so.
Based on what? Your clueless opinion? Verizon is positioned to surpass
AT&T in subscriber base and they aren't giving away money to market a
second class phone.
Oxford <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote in
news:colalovesmacs-A2A390.22285617102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net:
> "Kevin Weaver" <kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> You keep saying this like apple turned down Verizon. Verizon turned
>> down the iphone and apple.
>
> actually, you have it upside down, just like you mistakenly post at
> the top which is the mark of a true amateur on usenet.
>
> Verizon couldn't meet Apple's demands, so they were shown the door.
A lie insupported by the facts.
> Apple has a long history of doing that if companies can't meet high
> standards.
Such as?
> Look at IBM, they failed, and Apple kicked them out.
>
Um, no. IBM's failure was due to HP, Dell and a host of other companies.
Little player Apple wasn't the reason.
In article <13hcqqbi987vp68@corp.supernews.com>,
"Joel Koltner" <JKolstad71HatesSpam@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Oxford" <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:colalovesmacs-88CE63.12564117102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
> > expect sales of WinMobile, Symbian and Blackberries to dry up within a
> > year. this is good news for everyone!
>
> Not unless prices on iPhones drop significantly. Many people just don't use
> any 3rd-party applications on their phone in the first place -- probably at
> least 2/3rd of them: They're buying a phone based on what it can do "out of
> the box" and price.
You're making the mistake of comparing the iPhone's price to the price
of other phones. You might want to consider that the iPhone in the first
phone on the market which can reasonably take the place of an iPod, and
look at what people will happily pay for iPods.
(And yes, I'm quite aware there have been other music player phones, but
as we see in the music player market itself, most people don't consider
other music players to be reasonable iPod substitutes.)
Anyway, I'd expect Apple to be pretty aggressive with pricing. Because
they sell 80% of the world's music players, they can probably get better
prices on most components than their competitors.
> But I agree it's good news that Apple's opening up the iPhone to proper
> development.
--
"More than two decades later, it is hard to imagine the Revolutionary War coming
out any other way."
--George W. Bush in Martinsburg, W. Va., July 4, 2007
> "Kevin Weaver" <kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> Next you will be saying apple is worth more then Microsoft.
>
> it's "than" microsoft. not "then" microsoft.
>
> no wonder you use windows! duuuuuummmb!
>
> yes, apple will be worth more than microsoft... the general consensus is
> this will happen in 2-4 years. and surpass them in "revenue" within 1-2
> years.
According to who? I find no such analysis anywhere.
>
> currently apple is about a $28B company, microsoft is around $49B
>
> -
>
In article <bIARi.4664$wF3.312@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>,
"Kevin Weaver" <kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Next you will be saying apple is worth more then Microsoft.
It's not completely out of the realm of possibility that Apple will have
higher market capitalization than Microsoft in a couple of years. As
much as "serious" business types like to sneer at consumer products, the
markets Apple is playing in these days are actually or potentially
gigantic.
Meanwhile, Microsoft's core markets (desktop operating systems and
office software) have much lower growth rates (they're more
established), and Microsoft hasn't even been releasing particularly
compelling products in them.
--
"More than two decades later, it is hard to imagine the Revolutionary War coming
out any other way."
--George W. Bush in Martinsburg, W. Va., July 4, 2007
I'll be waiting for you to misspell. Then look out as I'll make it a point
to show even you mistype as well. : )
Yes I top post. As others here do as well.
"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-0976FE.22310017102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
> "Kevin Weaver" <kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> Then tell us why "Steve" Wanted Verizon with there CDMA ?
>>
>> Your so full of shit.
>
> learn proper grammar and how to post to usenet before you get any more
> information from me. it's "their", not "there".
>
> Kevin, you don't measure up, here is the door...
> Apple had nothing to do with IBM leaving the PC market ~ it was caused by
> IBM PC clones which now have over 90% of the desktop computer market
> compared to less than 10% for Apple. Percentages not exact - rounded off to
> Apple's advantage.
no, i didn't mean them leaving the PC market in that previous comment. i
meant that IBM lost the big Apple account for the PowerPC chips about
1.5 years ago... it caused quite a stir inside IBM and laid off 100's.
> > Verizon couldn't meet Apple's demands, so they were shown the door.
>
> and where did you get this tidbit- it seems every report says that verizon
> *wouldn't* meet apple's demands, so they showed apple the door...
yes, they failed at meeting high standards and lost the iPhone in the
process. perhaps they'll wisen up and win a contract in the future.
Oxford <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote in
news:colalovesmacs-B3E9D3.23413917102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net:
> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
>
>> > Verizon couldn't meet Apple's demands, so they were shown the door.
>>
>> and where did you get this tidbit- it seems every report says that
>> verizon *wouldn't* meet apple's demands, so they showed apple the
>> door...
>
> yes, they failed at meeting high standards and lost the iPhone in the
> process. perhaps they'll wisen up and win a contract in the future.
>
No- they met all standards. They turned down the phone.
> Some companies are already taking action. Nokia, for example,
is not
> allowing any applications to be loaded onto some of their
newest phones
> unless they have a digital signature that can be traced back to
a known
> developer. While this makes such a phone less than ütotally
open,ý we
> believe it is a step in the right direction. We are working on
an
> advanced system which will offer developers broad access to
natively
> program the iPhoneûs amazing software platform while at the
same time
> protecting users from malicious programs.
>
>
The Linux community has provided me with some beautiful
applications for my new Nokia N800 that still amaze and keep me
interested......at no cost, should I choose not to participate.
Thank you, Nokia.....and Skype.....(c;
Larry
--
You can tell there's extremely
intelligent life in the universe
because they have never called Earth.
"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-400E20.23395117102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
> "IMHO IIRC" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.NOSPAM> wrote:
>
>> VZW would not agree to all of Apples demands so VZW terminated the
>> negotiations.
>
> well, they still lost the ability to sell the iPhone which has put a
> drag on the company's stock compared to ATT.
>
> http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=T&t=...n&z=m&q=l&c=vz
a drag? they're about even in that chart. vz only lagged t in the hype
following the iphone intro, up to the actual launch, and vz outperforms t
since the actual iphone release.
Verizon passed on the iPhone. Or passed on the
terms Apple was demanding. These are the facts.
Just because some fanboy like you inverts it, it doesn't
make it the truth.
Verizon passed on the iPhone.
"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-A2A390.22285617102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
> "Kevin Weaver" <kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> You keep saying this like apple turned down Verizon. Verizon turned down the
>> iphone and apple.
>
> actually, you have it upside down, just like you mistakenly post at the
> top which is the mark of a true amateur on usenet.
>
> Verizon couldn't meet Apple's demands, so they were shown the door.
> Apple has a long history of doing that if companies can't meet high
> standards. Look at IBM, they failed, and Apple kicked them out.
"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-B3E9D3.23413917102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
>
>> > Verizon couldn't meet Apple's demands, so they were shown the door.
>>
>> and where did you get this tidbit- it seems every report says that verizon
>> *wouldn't* meet apple's demands, so they showed apple the door...
>
> yes, they failed at meeting high standards and lost the iPhone in the
> process. perhaps they'll wisen up and win a contract in the future.
"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-0976FE.22310017102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
> "Kevin Weaver" <kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> Then tell us why "Steve" Wanted Verizon with there CDMA ?
>>
>> Your so full of shit.
>
> learn proper grammar and how to post to usenet before you get any more
> information from me. it's "their", not "there".
>
> Kevin, you don't measure up, here is the door...
Why are you people arguing with an obvious 14 year old? It's like listening
to my kids argue with some one who knows the kids are wrong. Don't you have
grown-up stuff to do? And yes I top posted like us grown ups in the business
world that need new information separated from the previous static. It's an
adult thing!!
"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-FA7034.22392217102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
> "Kevin Weaver" <kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> Next you will be saying apple is worth more then Microsoft.
>
> it's "than" microsoft. not "then" microsoft.
>
> no wonder you use windows! duuuuuummmb!
>
> yes, apple will be worth more than microsoft... the general consensus is
> this will happen in 2-4 years. and surpass them in "revenue" within 1-2
> years.
>
> currently apple is about a $28B company, microsoft is around $49B
>
> -
> In article <8NWdnRF_ccSVKYvanZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
> "Ness_net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
>
> > "Oxford" <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in message
> > news:colalovesmacs-495069.18460517102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net..
> > .
> > >
> > > no, blackberry doesn't stand a chance since by unit sales alone
> > > they will be miniscule by this time next year. all business
> > > software developers will FLOCK to the iPhone since they know that
> > > is the future of all smart phones. RIMM doesn't stand a chance
> > > against apple at this point in the game.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Just the above statement proves you don't have even a fraction of an
> > actual clue.
> >
> > Everything runs as root on an iPhone, which will keep 95% plus
> > percent of the (smart anyway) IT depts away - and most do and will
> > BAN the pretty (but flawed) toy.
>
> This is a dumb claim. Yes, everything currently runs as root on an
> iPhone. But running an app in a non-multiuser OS (what most other mobile
> platforms have) is the same thing as running an app as root.
It most certainly isn't.
> OS X provides a real permissions model, sandboxing, and application
> signing. I can't offhand think of a mobile platform that implements all
> three. Apple is also reusing robust battle-tested code from a real
> operating system. You can bet there have been a hell of a lot more hours
> invested in hardening the BSD networking stack than in hardening
> whatever proprietary networking code a BlackBerry has.
I suspect the iPhone runs a multi-user os set up as a single-user system
but not as root. To run it as root is playing with fire.
In article <1i66kzq.17de1xaime2uvN%notinuse2@btinternet.com >, notinuse2@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:
> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
>
> > In article <8NWdnRF_ccSVKYvanZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
> > "Ness_net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "Oxford" <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in message
> > > news:colalovesmacs-495069.18460517102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net..
> > > .
> > > >
> > > > no, blackberry doesn't stand a chance since by unit sales alone
> > > > they will be miniscule by this time next year. all business
> > > > software developers will FLOCK to the iPhone since they know that
> > > > is the future of all smart phones. RIMM doesn't stand a chance
> > > > against apple at this point in the game.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Just the above statement proves you don't have even a fraction of an
> > > actual clue.
> > >
> > > Everything runs as root on an iPhone, which will keep 95% plus
> > > percent of the (smart anyway) IT depts away - and most do and will
> > > BAN the pretty (but flawed) toy.
> >
> > This is a dumb claim. Yes, everything currently runs as root on an
> > iPhone. But running an app in a non-multiuser OS (what most other mobile
> > platforms have) is the same thing as running an app as root.
>
> It most certainly isn't.
Of course it is. Running as root simply means there are no user-based
permissions that prevent processes from doing whatever they like.
Single-user operating systems don't have user-based permissions at all,
therefore there obviously can't be any user-based permissions that
prevent processes from doing whatever they like.
The "don't run anything as root" mantra has been repeated so many times
that people have some sort of irrational fear of it. It's true that it's
less secure than the alternatives offered by multi-user operating
systems... but running OS 9 or Windows 98, one was essentially always
running as root, and the same is true of most mobile operating systems
today.
[snip]
--
"More than two decades later, it is hard to imagine the Revolutionary War coming
out any other way."
--George W. Bush in Martinsburg, W. Va., July 4, 2007
First, the iPhone root password was broken. OK, it happens. But now it seems
that all applications run on the iPhone as root. Can you say biggest
security blunder of the 21st century to date?
"ZnU" <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in message
news:znu-3F7E6C.00393118102007@news.individual.net...
> In article <8NWdnRF_ccSVKYvanZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
> "Ness_net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
>
>> "Oxford" <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in message
>> news:colalovesmacs-495069.18460517102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net..
>> .
>> >
>> > no, blackberry doesn't stand a chance since by unit sales alone
>> > they will be miniscule by this time next year. all business
>> > software developers will FLOCK to the iPhone since they know that
>> > is the future of all smart phones. RIMM doesn't stand a chance
>> > against apple at this point in the game.
>> >
>>
>>
>> Just the above statement proves you don't have even a fraction of an
>> actual clue.
>>
>> Everything runs as root on an iPhone, which will keep 95% plus
>> percent of the (smart anyway) IT depts away - and most do and will
>> BAN the pretty (but flawed) toy.
>
> This is a dumb claim. Yes, everything currently runs as root on an
> iPhone. But running an app in a non-multiuser OS (what most other mobile
> platforms have) is the same thing as running an app as root.
>
> OS X provides a real permissions model, sandboxing, and application
> signing. I can't offhand think of a mobile platform that implements all
> three. Apple is also reusing robust battle-tested code from a real
> operating system. You can bet there have been a hell of a lot more hours
> invested in hardening the BSD networking stack than in hardening
> whatever proprietary networking code a BlackBerry has.
>
> Security is just one of many areas where the fact that the iPhone is
> using a slimmed down version of a real desktop OS gives Apple
> significant advantages over its competitors. (Well, except possibly its
> Linux-based competitors, but at least in the US Linux-based phones don't
> seem to have gotten anywhere.)
>
> [snip]
>
> --
> "More than two decades later, it is hard to imagine the Revolutionary War
> coming
> out any other way."
> --George W. Bush in Martinsburg, W. Va., July 4,
> 2007
>
As in multiple times before - you can't support your
feeble argument, so you pull out the threadbare
top post crap - again.
Sorry, you cannot deflect the truth
Verizon turned DOWN the iPhone. Told Apple to stick it.
"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-A2A390.22285617102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
>
> actually, you have it upside down, just like you mistakenly post at the
> top which is the mark of a true amateur on usenet.
>
Can't argue the facts, so Oxford goes the chicken shit route...
Again
"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-0976FE.22310017102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
> "Kevin Weaver" <kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> Then tell us why "Steve" Wanted Verizon with there CDMA ?
>>
>> Your so full of shit.
>
> learn proper grammar and how to post to usenet before you get any more
> information from me. it's "their", not "there".
>
> Kevin, you don't measure up, here is the door...
On Oct 17, 8:02 pm, Oxford <colalovesm...@smart.com> wrote:
> "IMHO IIRC" <NOS...@NOSPAM.NOSPAM> wrote:
> > > 3) the iPhone is on all of the top 5 carriers within 2 years.
<snip>
> > Also the iPhone is only GSM - is Apple also designing one that is CDMA?
>
> currently CDMA is like bad cable internet, it's good for the most part
> but it's shared and at peak times your calls sound like crap.
says the guy who said "Everything is going EVDO or WiFi, so it was
good that the US never got stuck with old fashioned 3G like Europe
did."? (c'mon oxford, what does evdo ride on top of?)
> so considering Steve is a no-nonsense kind of guy CDMA might not ever
> make the cut.
> we'll see.
Re: Can you say biggest security blunder of the 21st century to date?
In article <x6ednZmsveuoPoranZ2dnUVZ_jydnZ2d@giganews.com>,
"Ness Net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
[top-posting fixed]
> "ZnU" <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in message
> news:znu-3F7E6C.00393118102007@news.individual.net...
> > In article <8NWdnRF_ccSVKYvanZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
> > "Ness_net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Oxford" <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in message
> >> news:colalovesmacs-495069.18460517102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net..
> >> .
> >> >
> >> > no, blackberry doesn't stand a chance since by unit sales alone
> >> > they will be miniscule by this time next year. all business
> >> > software developers will FLOCK to the iPhone since they know that
> >> > is the future of all smart phones. RIMM doesn't stand a chance
> >> > against apple at this point in the game.
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Just the above statement proves you don't have even a fraction of an
> >> actual clue.
> >>
> >> Everything runs as root on an iPhone, which will keep 95% plus
> >> percent of the (smart anyway) IT depts away - and most do and will
> >> BAN the pretty (but flawed) toy.
> >
> > This is a dumb claim. Yes, everything currently runs as root on an
> > iPhone. But running an app in a non-multiuser OS (what most other mobile
> > platforms have) is the same thing as running an app as root.
> >
> > OS X provides a real permissions model, sandboxing, and application
> > signing. I can't offhand think of a mobile platform that implements all
> > three. Apple is also reusing robust battle-tested code from a real
> > operating system. You can bet there have been a hell of a lot more hours
> > invested in hardening the BSD networking stack than in hardening
> > whatever proprietary networking code a BlackBerry has.
> >
> > Security is just one of many areas where the fact that the iPhone is
> > using a slimmed down version of a real desktop OS gives Apple
> > significant advantages over its competitors. (Well, except possibly its
> > Linux-based competitors, but at least in the US Linux-based phones don't
> > seem to have gotten anywhere.)
>
> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2191348,00.asp
>
> First, the iPhone root password was broken. OK, it happens. But now it seems
> that all applications run on the iPhone as root. Can you say biggest
> security blunder of the 21st century to date?
Did you not understand anything I wrote above?
--
"More than two decades later, it is hard to imagine the Revolutionary War coming
out any other way."
--George W. Bush in Martinsburg, W. Va., July 4, 2007
Re: Can you say biggest security blunder of the 21st century to date?
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 11:17:00 -0700, "Ness Net"
<richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
>First, the iPhone root password was broken. OK, it happens. But now it seems
>that all applications run on the iPhone as root. Can you say biggest
>security blunder of the 21st century to date?
> In article <1i66kzq.17de1xaime2uvN%notinuse2@btinternet.com >,
> notinuse2@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:
>
> > ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> > >
> > > But running an app in a non-multiuser OS (what most other mobile
> > > platforms have) is the same thing as running an app as root.
> >
> > It most certainly isn't.
>
> Of course it is. Running as root simply means there are no user-based
> permissions that prevent processes from doing whatever they like.
> Single-user operating systems don't have user-based permissions at all,
The iPhone uses a version of OS X, so we're told, which certainly isn't
a single-user OS. Do you believe Apple's developers turned it into a
single-user OS? I very much doubt it, that would be throwing away major
development potential further down the line, like a multi user
permissions based iPhone, possibly using fingerprint access.
> therefore there obviously can't be any user-based permissions that
> prevent processes from doing whatever they like.
Why not? Separate root processes from user processes with only Apple
updates having root access.
With third party apps now available, how long do you suppose it'll be
before some enterprising hacker creates an exploit to record calls and
e-mail them to him? Most would be boring as hell, but dropping that
exploit on Jobs' iPhone might be very interesting, or even Sweaty's,
assuming he'd get one... Easier to implement if you know the user is
running as root.
> The "don't run anything as root" mantra has been repeated so many times
> that people have some sort of irrational fear of it.
The mantra is there for a very good reason, and if people have an
irrational fear of running as root that's because they don't understand
why.
> It's true that it's
> less secure than the alternatives offered by multi-user operating
> systems... but running OS 9 or Windows 98, one was essentially always
> running as root, and the same is true of most mobile operating systems
> today.
And look at the shambles that was Windows 98 security. MacOS had its
fair share of exploits too.
In article <1i672tb.1txsex61guies3N%notinuse2@btinternet.com> , notinuse2@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:
> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
>
> > In article <1i66kzq.17de1xaime2uvN%notinuse2@btinternet.com >,
> > notinuse2@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:
> >
> > > ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > But running an app in a non-multiuser OS (what most other mobile
> > > > platforms have) is the same thing as running an app as root.
> > >
> > > It most certainly isn't.
> >
> > Of course it is. Running as root simply means there are no user-based
> > permissions that prevent processes from doing whatever they like.
> > Single-user operating systems don't have user-based permissions at all,
>
> The iPhone uses a version of OS X, so we're told, which certainly isn't
> a single-user OS. Do you believe Apple's developers turned it into a
> single-user OS? I very much doubt it, that would be throwing away major
> development potential further down the line, like a multi user
> permissions based iPhone, possibly using fingerprint access.
I don't believe they cut the multiuser features out of OS X on the
iPhone. They're just not currently using them for anything, by all
accounts.
> > therefore there obviously can't be any user-based permissions that
> > prevent processes from doing whatever they like.
>
> Why not? Separate root processes from user processes with only Apple
> updates having root access.
>
> With third party apps now available, how long do you suppose it'll be
> before some enterprising hacker creates an exploit to record calls and
> e-mail them to him? Most would be boring as hell, but dropping that
> exploit on Jobs' iPhone might be very interesting, or even Sweaty's,
> assuming he'd get one... Easier to implement if you know the user is
> running as root.
I think this is the way they'll probably go when they officially open
the phone to third-party apps. They're not doing it now, though.
And all of this is beside the point. The discussion was whether running
as root on a multiuser OS was any more dangerous than the normal state
of affairs on a single-user OS. It's not, therefore the fact that the
iPhone currently runs everything as root doesn't represent any kind of
security problem for the iPhone *relative to most other mobile devices*,
contrary to what the iPhone's detractors have tried to claim.
[snip]
--
"More than two decades later, it is hard to imagine the Revolutionary War coming
out any other way."
--George W. Bush in Martinsburg, W. Va., July 4, 2007
Re: Can you say biggest security blunder of the 21st century to date?
1st - top posting - bite me. Self appointed Usenet cops can
kiss my ass.
2nd - I read it and contend that you are not correct.
"ZnU" <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in message
news:znu-281E90.15014618102007@news.individual.net...
>
> [top-posting fixed]
>
>
> Did you not understand anything I wrote above?
>
notinuse2@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote in
news:1i66kzq.17de1xaime2uvN%notinuse2@btinternet.c om:
> I suspect the iPhone runs a multi-user os set up as a single-user system
> but not as root. To run it as root is playing with fire.
>
> -
Isn't root access what Apple and ATT have, with a backdoor service
accessible over the air....and what YOU have is the one user it supports,
with lots of stuff locked away you cannot access because you are never
root?
I had a live Iphone, that wasn't a demo, in my hands at a cafe while the
medical student that owned it was perusing my Nokia N800 Linux box on wifi.
It had a really neat protective skin on it I wish I had for my N800 besides
the leather case. I think I really liked it because it was FLAT BLACK
making the display appear much brighter without your eyes being blinded by
the glitz.
He said he was ordering an N800 and two 8GB SDHC cards from buy.com
tonight....(c; Oops!
Larry
--
You can tell there's extremely
intelligent life in the universe
because they have never called Earth.
Re: Can you say biggest security blunder of the 21st century to date?
In article <SZidnUkJxMCKQ4ranZ2dnUVZ_uygnZ2d@giganews.com>,
"Ness Net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
> 1st - top posting - bite me. Self appointed Usenet cops can
> kiss my ass.
>
> 2nd - I read it and contend that you are not correct.
Please explain how using a user account that ignores user-based
permissions on a multiuser OS is meaningfully different form the normal
state of affairs on an OS that doesn't have user-based permissions.
> "ZnU" <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in message
> news:znu-281E90.15014618102007@news.individual.net...
> >
> > [top-posting fixed]
> >
> >
> > Did you not understand anything I wrote above?
--
"More than two decades later, it is hard to imagine the Revolutionary War coming
out any other way."
--George W. Bush in Martinsburg, W. Va., July 4, 2007
In article <Xns99CDBD0C047E2noonehomecom@208.49.80.253>,
Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:
> notinuse2@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote in
> news:1i66kzq.17de1xaime2uvN%notinuse2@btinternet.c om:
>
> > I suspect the iPhone runs a multi-user os set up as a single-user
> > system but not as root. To run it as root is playing with fire.
> >
> > -
>
> Isn't root access what Apple and ATT have, with a backdoor service
> accessible over the air....and what YOU have is the one user it
> supports, with lots of stuff locked away you cannot access because
> you are never root?
Everything on an iPhone currently runs as root. The reason you can't do
whatever you like with this access is simply because there's no
interface (graphical or otherwise) that lets you do it.
[snip]
--
"More than two decades later, it is hard to imagine the Revolutionary War coming
out any other way."
--George W. Bush in Martinsburg, W. Va., July 4, 2007
Re: Apple To Allow Third Party Apps ON iPhone 
Linear Mode
