macOS 10.12 Sierra vs. Ubuntu 16.04 Linux Benchmarking

[starshipeleven]

No, seriously dude. Xorg is my main worry with Linux security and its not a big worry. That isn't trolling.

This is completely tangential to the fact that Apple never had security as a high priority in software development.

As for Xorg, you probably missed the fact that everyone and their dog is moving to Wayland on Linux, within a year it will be usable by everyone (bleeding edge distros have already switched).

As for the future of metal, I would very much enjoy metal ports of games and software.

A bright future, being the responsible for games and software not running natively (i.e. lower performance). Can you stop being a fanboy for a moment? This isn't a matter of "enjoing ports", it's a matter of "Metal will require non-native ports at all".
On Mobile it MIGHT be worth it as there are more iOS-only apps, but I'm getting mixed views from devs.

This kind of rage baiting bs you are doing here is trolling.

I'm not rage baiting, I'm stating facts. Truth hurts.

So lets move on shall we?

bullshit shall. not. pass.

[labyrinth153]

What a childish little brat you are. :/ I can enjoy whatever devices I please and happily I enjoy just about all types of desktop systems. You are the fanboy. I am well aware of the downsides and they are not as destructive as you seem to think.

[starshipeleven]

What a childish little brat you are. :/ I can enjoy whatever devices I please and happily I enjoy just about all types of desktop systems.

You can keep enjoying whatever, I'm not saying you shouldn't.
I'm just stating that "I will enjoy stuff" isn't changing the fact that Metal is hurting Apple ecosystem as less softwares will run natively at native performance, just because they cannot simply adopt Vulkan like everyone else.

You are the fanboy.

I'm not the one that claims he will enjoy software with crippled performance on his Apple device.

I am well aware of the downsides and they are not as destructive as you seem to think.

Yeah, macOS becoming a second-rate citizen worse than linux for intensive programs isn't an issue, after all most people on Mac don't use them for intensive programs anyway.

[aht0]

What a bunch of crap. Apple and security?! This is madness! It's probably less secure than winblows. Ease of writing drivers? Then tell me why it's years behind Linux in graphics? There's no single 'advanced' thing in os x.

I'd say "winblows" has actually better security than linux on average. Linux is mostly "defended" by it's niche market share and not much else. If malware writers would put equal amount of effort into writing malware for linux, Linux desktops would be in a pretty sad state quite fast. Look how drastic measures Android had to take for making the OS attack proof on reasonable level..

[Hi-Angel]

I'd say "winblows" has actually better security than linux on average. Linux is mostly "defended" by it's niche market share and not much else. If malware writers would put equal amount of effort into writing malware for linux, Linux desktops would be in a pretty sad state quite fast. Look how drastic measures Android had to take for making the OS attack proof on reasonable level..

Nah. First, malware couldn't do anything with your system beyond directories accessed without root access. Second, GNU/Linux have sandboxing framework that deny access to some app for certain directories. For example you can with AppArmor disallow for Wine apps to access anything beyond ~/.wine dir.

I do agree that the Android security system is needed, but what's already here is better anyway than what Windows have.

[aht0]

Nah. First, malware couldn't do anything with your system beyond directories accessed without root access. Second, GNU/Linux have sandboxing framework that deny access to some app for certain directories. For example you can with AppArmor disallow for Wine apps to access anything beyond ~/.wine dir.

I do agree that the Android security system is needed, but what's already here is better anyway than what Windows have.

Blind belief. Linux development philosophy makes sure there are plenty of holes left in the code for malware writers to take advantage of. All that is needed is motivation which equals to potential financial gain. Given enough interest, necessary attack vectors will be found and used.

[starshipeleven]

Linux development philosophy makes sure there are plenty of holes left in the code for malware writers to take advantage of.

Bullshit, if you go looking at average amount of bugs per lines of code, linux comes up as higher quality than average by a fair margin. http://www.pcworld.com/article/20382...concludes.html

[starshipeleven]

Nah. First, malware couldn't do anything with your system beyond directories accessed without root access. Second, GNU/Linux have sandboxing framework that deny access to some app for certain directories. For example you can with AppArmor disallow for Wine apps to access anything beyond ~/.wine dir.

I do agree that the Android security system is needed, but what's already here is better anyway than what Windows have.

The big issue with sandboxing frameworks is that they are not truly used by the average distros. That is even when they ship them the configuration is very generic or left to the user.

Android is an example of VERY locked down system with SElinux.

[Hi-Angel]

Blind belief. Linux development philosophy makes sure there are plenty of holes left in the code for malware writers to take advantage of. All that is needed is motivation which equals to potential financial gain. Given enough interest, necessary attack vectors will be found and used.

For widely used apps and toolkits security updates are always a priority. In Debian-based distros you can even see updates sorted as "security" and "non-security".

Besides, every security technique first appears on GNU/Linux. E.g. general ASLR in 2005 on Linux, and in 2007 on Windows. Kernel ASLR in 2014 on Linux, and on Windows not yet here. NX Bit in 1999 on Linux, and in 2004 on Windows.

Sorry aht0, but what you're talking makes no sense. There probably are reasons to complain about security, but you can not say that it worse than on Windows.

[aht0]

Besides, every security technique first appears on GNU/Linux. E.g. general ASLR in 2005 on Linux, and in 2007 on Windows. Kernel ASLR in 2014 on Linux, and on Windows not yet here. NX Bit in 1999 on Linux, and in 2004 on Windows.

Rather stupendous and suspect claim. EVERY security technique first appears on GNU/Linux.. WOW?

First operating system to support ASLR by default was OpenBSD back in 2003. OpenBSD completed it's ASLR-related development by 2008.

NX bit and stuff directly related to it (executable space protection) has been around "since forever". First concepts and hw implementations surfaced back in 1960's. On PC platform it was rather later comer but OpenBSD implemented it's support year and some months (May 2003) before it's support made it's appearance in Linux mainline kernel 2.6.8 (August 2004). Solaris had it supported back in 1997 btw (on Sun SPARC).