NY Times: WiFi hack in 60 seconds or less

[Damien]

[QUOTE=Gurm]
Really? I mean, I'm pretty sure nobody is actually "knowledgeable" about the Mac, present company perhaps excluded. The Mac is "magic". It either works or it doesn't. Blue screens? We can tell you what you did wrong there. Mac bombs? NO CLUE. What does "error 10" mean? All I know is it made the machine lock up. Even OSX, which OUGHT to be easy to explore because it's based on BSD... isn't. It's all arcane and locked down and impossible to fiddle with. That's the real problem with the Mac. When it "just works", it's brilliant. When it doesn't... you can't MAKE it work, because you can't fiddle with anything. The fix is to just reinstall... which drives me insane.

QUOTE]

Sounds like you know how to fix Windows and you have yet to learn how to trouble shoot a Mac. I think you will find that the majority of users are not fan boys! They just want to work and don't know how to troubleshoot a problem be it PC or Mac. I have been using Macs at home for a few years now and I must say I am very impressed with the overall security of the system out of the box. I take care of a few hundred computers at work which are all windows. Thank god for preconfigured baseline cd's. Otherwise it would take ages to setup a new PC. I am still waiting for the first virus so I can install some antivirus software on my Mac. I am not been smug, When it happens I will install the software but not until there is a need.

[Gurm]

I always hear Mac-haters make comparisons like that, and yet I've never once seen it (not to that extreme degree). I code Java apps with JBuilder, create vector images with Illustrator, and do other image-related tasks in Photoshop on my iBook. That's not one of those "big ol' design" Macs (whatever the hell that is) by the way. Runs much faster than the $600 HP I have.

Yes, I have been far more impressed by the new iBooks than by the big G5's. The design macs are those huge industrial-looking G5 towers. Some might be G4's, I'm sure. The monitors are real nice... but seriously, I realize it sounds like rhetoric. But I've seen it happen too many times. And I wasn't going in EXPECTING it. I was EXPECTING the Macs to just walk all over the PC's in terms of graphics processing. I'm the first one to tell you that Mhz doesn't mean squat, especially in the graphics world. But I was surprised to discover...

Adobe's apps have gone down hill in terms of their performance on Mac OS, but that's because Adobe specifically shifted focus to the Windows platform years ago

And yet they're still touted as the reason to use Macs for graphics. I think that's kind of my point. Macs haven't actually been superior for graphics work in YEARS. I'm not saying they aren't fun to work on, or capable. I'm simply saying that their PERCEIVED graphics superiority is based on the state of affairs in the mid 1990's.

And yes, early versions of OS X were horrid in many ways. It was a new platform and had more than its fair share of issues. Any long-time Mac user will tell you that, and most of them were rather vocal about it. They usually are when there is a real problem.

*chuckle* and yet it was so much BETTER than OS9. I'm not really being sarcastic here. Mac users found OSX to be problematic, and I heard many say they preferred OS9, and yet OS9 was riddled with the same problems as previous Mac OS'es. Huge amounts of viruses, random spontaneous crashes, etc.

The data recovery apps for Mac OS are not new, there's just more of them than there were before.

They're more USEFUL now, too. I used to use Norton for the Mac. It was relatively unhelpful. Great for just getting back a file you tossed out by accident, but not so great for any meaningful data recovery.

As far as Entourage goes, what the hell does that have to do with Mac OS? It's a half-ass MS application. If you need to operate in a primarily Windows-based network that uses Exchange, then there's that whole right tool for the job thing. There's that wookie again.

It contributes to the whole "user experience" thing. The Mac users zealously insist that they have a better experience, but then they just sit there wringing their hands when their inbox implodes because Entourage just can't deal with more than a certain number of messages. Then I clean out the inbox, put all the mail into "received" folders (and notify them with instructions), and they spend a week wondering where it went before I show them. But it exemplifies what's wrong with Mac coding - perhaps what's wrong with BAD Mac coding, I ought to say, because the apps from APPLE seem to work nice, and I'm sure the ones from people who know what they're doing work nice.

What can I say though. I had generally good experiences on Windows and I'm having far better ones on OS X. The latter fits the way I work and the work I need to do better. Windows appears to do it for you. It's as simple as that.

Neither one really does it for me. But I'm a pragmatist. Most of what I need to do requires Windows. If not, I would have jumped ship for some *nix variant long ago.

This is an old argument with the same results. Mac users will always defend their chosen platform and Windows users will always say how horribly it performs in all their side-by-side comparisons. I just keep coming back to the fact that if Macs were as horrid as some people seem to think, Mac users wouldn't (as a majority) still be using them. At least that's the case with every long-time Mac user I know.

Actually, I'm convinced that because the overall user experience is so good (pretty, smooth, etc.) that Mac users have become selectively insensitive to the passage of time. I'm not saying this to be mean, mind you! I honestly think that they just don't NOTICE how long certain basic operations take, because the overall experience is very good. Contrast this with Windows, where the basic experience can be so terrible that even the fastest machine can drive people crazy the instant it slows down a bit.

*Not calling you a Mac-hater by the way, just that you sound like one :P

Well, I think that any rhetoric has its basis in fact. The Mac zealots, with their emphasis on blue screens... well there's a basis in fact there. It's an OLD fact, but it was at one time NOT an exaggeration that you'd get hourly blue screens. Win95 was bad like that. But that was a decade ago.

[Gurm]

Sounds like you know how to fix Windows and you have yet to learn how to trouble shoot a Mac. I think you will find that the majority of users are not fan boys! They just want to work and don't know how to troubleshoot a problem be it PC or Mac. I have been using Macs at home for a few years now and I must say I am very impressed with the overall security of the system out of the box. I take care of a few hundred computers at work which are all windows. Thank god for preconfigured baseline cd's. Otherwise it would take ages to setup a new PC. I am still waiting for the first virus so I can install some antivirus software on my Mac. I am not been smug, When it happens I will install the software but not until there is a need.

You know what machine I liked troubleshooting? The Amiga. Sure, every crash was followed by a black screen with red text, and the arcane "Guru Meditation" followed by a 30-digit number. But that 30-digit number was referenced in a large book that any Amiga technician owned a copy of, and you could find out EXACTLY what the problem was.

I _can_ troubleshoot a Mac. But the Mac fights me at it. I mean, on a PC when an application crashes, I get a nice error. It LOOKS scary, but it's nice. "Application {name} has caused an illegal operation in {module} of type {error} with data {data}." You can ignore the data, and half the time the error type isn't helpful, but it's good to know that Illustrator caused an illegal operation in the video driver. That means it's probably nVidia's fault, and you should fix the video driver. Contrast that with the Mac. You get a window that says "Error 10." That's it. No other information. Your options are "ok" and "reboot". But clicking "ok" doesn't make the error balloon go away, so you pretty much HAVE to reboot. *sigh* Can we troubleshoot this? Sure, but the Mac didn't help us at all.

[Kooldino]

The problem isn't with Macs or OS X, it is with the specific device drivers for the particular chipset. The same or like flaws exists in the Windows and Linux versions as well.

Exactly. Now tell that to a Mac Zealot who beleives his PC is inherently untouchable because of the apple logo.

[Damien]

You know what machine I liked troubleshooting? The Amiga. Sure, every crash was followed by a black screen with red text, and the arcane "Guru Meditation" followed by a 30-digit number. But that 30-digit number was referenced in a large book that any Amiga technician owned a copy of, and you could find out EXACTLY what the problem was.

I _can_ troubleshoot a Mac. But the Mac fights me at it. I mean, on a PC when an application crashes, I get a nice error. It LOOKS scary, but it's nice. "Application {name} has caused an illegal operation in {module} of type {error} with data {data}." You can ignore the data, and half the time the error type isn't helpful, but it's good to know that Illustrator caused an illegal operation in the video driver. That means it's probably nVidia's fault, and you should fix the video driver. Contrast that with the Mac. You get a window that says "Error 10." That's it. No other information. Your options are "ok" and "reboot". But clicking "ok" doesn't make the error balloon go away, so you pretty much HAVE to reboot. *sigh* Can we troubleshoot this? Sure, but the Mac didn't help us at all.

No need to fight, you know how to trouble shoot or you are in foreign territory .
You can always call somebody who can help.

[Jessterw]

Yes, I have been far more impressed by the new iBooks than by the big G5's...

Oh I'm not defending the state of the hardware. When the G4's first came on the scene they were nice, but quickly eclipsed by Intel and AMD. That's what happens when you go with manufacturers/suppliers who can't deliver on what they promised. The G5 was a nice bump up from the G4, but still wholly inadequate in the grand scheme of things.

And yet they're still touted as the reason to use Macs for graphics. I think that's kind of my point. Macs haven't actually been superior for graphics work in YEARS. I'm not saying they aren't fun to work on, or capable. I'm simply saying that their PERCEIVED graphics superiority is based on the state of affairs in the mid 1990's.

No denying that. Macs, again, lost most of their hardware advantage when the suits took over the company and wanted to make it into a business competitor to the Wintel platform. Software companies like Adobe eventually took notice and started diverting more of their attention to Windows.

*chuckle* and yet it was so much BETTER than OS9. I'm not really being sarcastic here. Mac users found OSX to be problematic, and I heard many say they preferred OS9, and yet OS9 was riddled with the same problems as previous Mac OS'es. Huge amounts of viruses, random spontaneous crashes, etc.

People never like change. OS X was not Mac OS in anything but name. It was NeXT. OS 9 was crap by Mac OS standards, but it was better in some regards than previous versions. I think saying it had huge amounts of viruses is an exaggeration, but then it's not hard for that perception to arise when you have such a limited user base. That's why all the problems with the MacBook Pros seems like more of a problem than it is; the number of actual owners that are experiencing these problems is minute. Last Mac OS I used was 7, by choice, until OS X (10.3).

They're more USEFUL now, too. I used to use Norton for the Mac. It was relatively unhelpful. Great for just getting back a file you tossed out by accident, but not so great for any meaningful data recovery...

It contributes to the whole "user experience" thing. The Mac users zealously insist that they have a better experience, but then they just sit there wringing their hands when their inbox implodes because Entourage just can't deal with more than a certain number of messages. Then I clean out the inbox, put all the mail into "received" folders (and notify them with instructions), and they spend a week wondering where it went before I show them. But it exemplifies what's wrong with Mac coding - perhaps what's wrong with BAD Mac coding, I ought to say, because the apps from APPLE seem to work nice, and I'm sure the ones from people who know what they're doing work nice.

I still see this as a problem with specific applications that happen to be on the Mac, not with the user experience on a Mac. It also has nothing to do with "Mac coding", simply because code is code and bad code is bad code, regardless of platform. Bad coding doesn't always make for a bad application though, just look at a large majority of quality Windows apps. A large majority of Windows developers couldn't write good code to save their lives. I know, I've worked in the area. It has nothing to do with Windows though, but simply the ease of entry.

You gave two examples, both from companies who have a history of producing crap software at times. Nortons went awry on Windows as well, and Microsoft hasn't had the best track record itself with some apps and how well they function.

Badly designed software exists on every platform, the Mac is no exception, but that doesn't determine the user experience on the platform when there exists a thriving developer-base that is dedicated to producing quality applications.

Neither one really does it for me. But I'm a pragmatist. Most of what I need to do requires Windows. If not, I would have jumped ship for some *nix variant long ago.

That's why I use OS X. I get solid BSD underpinnings with a nice UI. :P

Actually, I'm convinced that because the overall user experience is so good (pretty, smooth, etc.) that Mac users have become selectively insensitive to the passage of time. I'm not saying this to be mean, mind you! I honestly think that they just don't NOTICE how long certain basic operations take, because the overall experience is very good. Contrast this with Windows, where the basic experience can be so terrible that even the fastest machine can drive people crazy the instant it slows down a bit.

I agree and disagree with that. Certainly it's true to an extent, but I'd venture to say it has less to do with not noticing or being insensitive than it is simply allowing for the shortcomings because the benefits to their daily computing outweighs them. Mac users are a pretty vocal bunch and if you kept up with the rumblings within the community it'd be easier to see that they've never just settled for the shortcomings. Sadly, until now, the greater computing community has never felt the need to focus on anything but the bad and superficial.

Well, I think that any rhetoric has its basis in fact. The Mac zealots, with their emphasis on blue screens... well there's a basis in fact there. It's an OLD fact, but it was at one time NOT an exaggeration that you'd get hourly blue screens. Win95 was bad like that. But that was a decade ago.

Well so was 98 and ME, but yes, that was a long time ago. Which is the problem on both sides. Uninformed individuals still spout off about issues that are no longer issues. Mac users tend to be a little more informed about Windows simply because they are often required to use it at work or elsewhere, while Windows users generally just avoid Macs (well they used to at least) because they had one or two bad experiences. So you have an opinion shaped over a continuous period of time versus one based on a short or intermittent pattern of usage.

[Gurm]

Felt obliged to say that I played with a top-of-the-line uber-G5-thingy today. It was ... very nice. The options are still too "hidden" for my tastes, I had to actually HUNT to find the network settings for example, it's clear that it's still intended to be a "it just magically works" OS. But I can see why people really like it. With a sufficiently powerful video card (this thing had whatever whamma-jamma thing ATI puts out for the Mac now) the UI is just smoooooooooth in a way windows never is. I still don't think I'd like to work on it, and I haven't seen what it's like all "loaded up" with garbage. But... it was definitely a refreshing change.

[Jessterw]

Blue Apple > System Preferences > Network or Sharing depending on what you want to change. Of course there are also some network related applications found in Applications > Utilities, in the form of Directory Access, Netinfo Manager, Network Utility, ODBC Administrator and of course Internet Connect in the root Applications directory.

To me that's no harder than finding them on Windows. You just have to know where to look under either OS.

And what's wrong with an OS that "just works" unless you need it to do otherwise? Maybe after years dealing with the tech support side of things (as well as being a developer and a sys admin at all once) I like an OS that just works so I can get on with more important things. Then again, I'm not into tinkering with my PCs anymore - I just don't find any enjoyment in such things these days. I want to get my work done and spend what little free time I have doing non-PC related things.

[The PIT]

Where I work most mac users struggle to configure the simplest mail program. In general if it doesn't work for them out of the box they're completly stuck.

Overall they're no more techie than the average Windows user and security wise no wiser. If someone wrote a simple ap to pop up and ask the root password most of them would put it striaght in like any other user.

Looks like a case of Mac over inflated ego going on here.

Still like Macs but they won't buy me a new one so the one I got is becoming more of door stop and only gets used when a call comes in. Problem is if it's the latest version of OS X I'm stuck as the configuration can be different.

As for hidden options isn't that what MS wants to do???

[Jessterw]

Your Mac users aren't what used to be the norm then. Or maybe I just don't have enough dealings with those that have chosen to use a Mac because it's the cool thing to do.

Every long-time Mac user I know or have known is definitely more concerned about their computing environment than the average computer user (notice, I'm not saying more than Windows or other OS users). Then again, most of them are creative professionals who are tech savvy or are developers. So it appears it comes down to which users you are exposed to.

I'm not saying that Mac users are smarter than Windows users, I'm saying that the majority of long-time and/or professional Mac users care more about certain things (like security) than the average computer user, which used to mean more Windows users than anything else (market share and all). Obviously the balance is shifting a smidge and the Mac is gaining users that aren't going to be as clued-in as the traditional Mac crowd. But I strongly disagree with the notion that overall Mac users are no more technically inclined than the average computer user (or Windows user if you want to be that specific). It's simply not true. It's not because "it's a Mac" or that there is something just superbly wonderful about a Mac or the Mac OS. It's simply because of the type of people that gravitate towards the platform (and largely always have). Just as there is a certain type of person that is more likely to be found using a *nix variant. Windows, on the other hand, tends to attract a wider range of users because it is so ubiquitous.

Not sure what any of this has to do with ego. If you're directing that at me then you're way off. I'm more than aware of the shortcomings of the Mac OS, both past and present. Same goes for Windows and Linux and various flavours of Unix and BSD. I happily used Windows for years until I/it reached a point where it just wasn't cutting it for me any longer. OS X cuts it for me. Focus on that last bit there, "for me". I'm not telling anyone that it is the greatest thing since whatever or that everyone should choose it, far from it. It's more than evident that some people would be horribly unsatisfied with the experience.

To break it down to the simplest terms. There is no such thing as a Mac, Unix/Linux, or Windows user. You just have users who happen to choose a particular platform, for better or worse. Some specifically choose that platform because of their needs and/or experiences while using others, while some choose theirs because that's all they know. A clueless Mac user is going to be a clueless Windows user, and a tech savvy Windows user will likely be the same on a Mac or Linux. Vice versa on all counts within reason. A user may not be comfortable on another platform, they may in fact hate it, but that doesn't change what sort of user they are. Now, for some, a change in platform may make it easier for them to become a 'better' sort of user, or at least a different sort.

It's no different than how well we excel or don't at our chosen or happened-upon professions.

[Jessterw]

Back on topic...

Here's a decent and relatively detailed analysis of the hack 'event' in question:

http://www.smallworks.com/archives/00000455.htm

It raises some good points, and while I'm not sure how valid the some of conclusions are, there is definitely something more to the story that the regular news channels aren't covering nor are the individuals in question offering to explain at this point.

[Gurm]

Ok, I'm now officially accepting donations of cash or hardware towards the "Jason needs to own a Mac to play with" fund. Anything that'll run OSX with most of the trimmings will do, so even an aging iMac ought to be fine if I add some RAM to it.

[Nowhere]

http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/06/08/18/1323201.shtml

Hmm...now it almost looks fishy... (in short: the hack works...but works using 3rd party WiFi adapter and 3rd party drivers, and how many Mac users use something like that?)

[KvHagedorn]

Not to disrupt this nostalgic Mac-PC war, but the easy, foolproof way to not get your wifi hacked is to use a damned wire.

[Technoid]

Not to disrupt this nostalgic Mac-PC war, but the easy, foolproof way to not get your wifi hacked is to use a damned wire.

Amen to that!