PS/2 Ports on a PowerMac?

i have used Macs a few times thru my life but i would not depend on one enough to leave it on all the time i leave my Linux machines on all the time but i do not trust Mac enought to never shut them off expecially one with a CRT leaving those on all the time kills the tube fast
 
LeoTheLion89 said:
i have used Macs a few times thru my life but i would not depend on one enough to leave it on all the time i leave my Linux machines on all the time but i do not trust Mac enought to never shut them off expecially one with a CRT leaving those on all the time kills the tube fast
Click to expand...
I might remind you that Linux is a Unix-workalike. All versions of MacOS X are POSIX-compatible. All versions of MacOS X beginning with MacOS X 10.5 (Leopard) are certified UNIX 03. The notion that Linux is more trustworthy than MacOS X is just that, a notion. Like DeltaMac I do not turn off my primary Mac except on rare occasion.
 
I might remind you that Linux is a Unix-workalike. All versions of MacOS X are POSIX-compatible. All versions of MacOS X beginning with MacOS X 10.5 (Leopard) are certified UNIX 03. The notion that Linux is more trustworthy than MacOS X is just that, a notion. Like DeltaMac I do not turn off my primary Mac except on rare occasion.
Click to expand...

unlike linux however Mac OS X would be the 1st thing to crash with a virus and the fact there is no Anti Virus or Firewalls for the Mac OS that is total unsecurity unlike Linux which is total security
 
This is wrong on so many levels. The Mac would not be the first to crash due to a virus because there are no MacOS X viruses in the wild. As it happens, I am one of the few members of this forum who has actually experienced MacOS X viruses. It was back in 1989 when the extant OS was System 6. I used my Symantec Antivirus for Macintosh to remove 62 infections from the computer--not 62 viruses, 62 infections. Suffice it to say, that 1989 Macintosh II did not even hiccup. MacOS X is much more robust than System 6. If real viruses could not take down System 6, then I am confident that imaginary viruses cannot take down MacOS X.
 
MisterMe said:
This is wrong on so many levels. The Mac would not be the first to crash due to a virus because there are no MacOS X viruses in the wild. As it happens, I am one of the few members of this forum who has actually experienced MacOS X viruses. It was back in 1989 when the extant OS was System 6. I used my Symantec Antivirus for Macintosh to remove 62 infections from the computer--not 62 viruses, 62 infections. Suffice it to say, that 1989 Macintosh II did not even hiccup. MacOS X is much more robust than System 6. If real viruses could not take down System 6, then I am confident that imaginary viruses cannot take down MacOS X.
Click to expand...

a hackers convension proved the same virus written for os x windows and linux chashed mac in 3 mins windows in 5 and uneffective at all on linux
 
A proof-of-concept at a 'hacker's convention' does not mean that viruses for OS X exist in the wild - and there's no proof of that.
If you want the built-in firewall in OS X, then use it.
Some would say that firewall can be improved on, so there are third party improvements on that. You can also add to the built-in (since Snow Leopard) "known-dangerous-files" detection that is part of the system now. Can you lock OS X down fairly tight? Yes... Is that lock down foolproof? probably not - so you again go to some of the major players for that, such as Doorstop X, and others.
 
DeltaMac said:
A proof-of-concept at a 'hacker's convention' does not mean that viruses for OS X exist in the wild - and there's no proof of that.
If you want the built-in firewall in OS X, then use it.
Some would say that firewall can be improved on, so there are third party improvements on that. You can also add to the built-in (since Snow Leopard) "known-dangerous-files" detection that is part of the system now. Can you lock OS X down fairly tight? Yes... Is that lock down foolproof? probably not - so you again go to some of the major players for that, such as Doorstop X, and others.
Click to expand...

i know with most Linux system you CANNOT have root (admin) access at all no login only an admin password is it possible to only have a Standard User Account and have a admin password?
 
An admin account in OS X is not a root-level user, although you can sudo to do most root-level tasks. But, an admin account is still not a root-level user.
The root user is NOT enabled by default, unless you choose to make it so.

An admin-level task for a standard user requires the standard user to provide an admin user name and password for authentication.

Most experienced users will recommend that until you gain some knowledge in what you should NOT do, and can appreciate the power (and the accompanying risks) of the root user, you should operate from a standard account, which will not allow the user to directly sudo.
Lastly, if you choose to enable the root user for a temporary requirement, you should disable that root user as the important last step when you have completed that task.

What is your real question, here?
 
DeltaMac said:
An admin account in OS X is not a root-level user, although you can sudo to do most root-level tasks. But, an admin account is still not a root-level user.
The root user is NOT enabled by default, unless you choose to make it so.

An admin-level task for a standard user requires the standard user to provide an admin user name and password for authentication.

Most experienced users will recommend that until you gain some knowledge in what you should NOT do, and can appreciate the power (and the accompanying risks) of the root user, you should operate from a standard account, which will not allow the user to directly sudo.
Lastly, if you choose to enable the root user for a temporary requirement, you should disable that root user as the important last step when you have completed that task.

What is your real question, here?
Click to expand...

well with Linux you can give your account Admin settings but still need a password for Updates, software install, connecting wifi, uninstalling software and waking from sleep
 
That's no different from the default admin account in OS X.
An admin account still needs to enter the admin password for software updates, and most other modifications to the system. You can always choose to leave the password out of your wifi connection, so you always have to enter a password when you want to connect (assuming a secured wireless connection, anyway). Then, a password to come out of sleep is just a setting in your System Preferences.

Are you trying to show how Linux is somehow more secure than OS X (which, again, has a Unix core?) So far, you haven't mentioned anything that OS X doesn't do...
Do you have other questions that some of the experienced users here (some, like you, also have extensive backgrounds in a variety of other OSes) can answer?
 
DeltaMac said:
That's no different from the default admin account in OS X.
An admin account still needs to enter the admin password for software updates, and most other modifications to the system. You can always choose to leave the password out of your wifi connection, so you always have to enter a password when you want to connect (assuming a secured wireless connection, anyway). Then, a password to come out of sleep is just a setting in your System Preferences.

Are you trying to show how Linux is somehow more secure than OS X (which, again, has a Unix core?) So far, you haven't mentioned anything that OS X doesn't do...
Do you have other questions that some of the experienced users here (some, like you, also have extensive backgrounds in a variety of other OSes) can answer?
Click to expand...

i have no expecience in OS X past Panther so anything that changed between Panther and Leopard please let me know (features not appearence)
 
LeoTheLion89 said:
i have no expecience in OS X past Panther so anything that changed between Panther and Leopard please let me know (features not appearence)
Click to expand...
Almost everything of significance that DeltaMac told you about was a feature of Panther. IIRC, there were not even proof-of-concept viruses while Panther was the extant version of MacOS X.
 
Looks like this thread diverged pretty far. All I want to add to the current discussion is that OS X handles root privileges much like Ubuntu and several other Linux distros. The root account does not exist by default; if you need root access, you need to use sudo. Depending on what your needs and expectations are, this can be a good thing or a bad thing. In any case, you can tweak it to suit your needs by configuring your sudoers file or even enabling the root account (though I wouldn't recommend it for general use).
 
can u use sudo commands to "force" install Intel based apps on PCC based macs simular to forcing 32 bit install on 64 bit ubuntu systems
 
LeoTheLion89 said:
can u use sudo commands to "force" install Intel based apps on PCC based macs simular to forcing 32 bit install on 64 bit ubuntu systems
Click to expand...
It is unclear exactly what you mean. If by "PCC based macs" you mean PPC-based Macs, then it depends. The Power PC family of processors are inherently 64-bit with the ability to transparently run a mixture of 32-bit and 64-bit code. However, the Finder in PPC-compatible versions of MacOS X was 32-bit. If you want to develop 64-bit Aqua-based applications, then you must develop a hybrid application. The UI must be 32-bit. The backend may be 64-bit.

As for the notion of running Intel code on PPC hardware--assuming that indeed you mean PPC hardware--no, it can't be done. However, if you have the source code, then Intel and PPC are not issues. Use the Developer Tools to compile your code to your favorite target. In the case of commercial software, you will not have access to the source code. If you want generic Unix applications, then you may use Fink, MacPorts, or your standard Unix tools.
 
It cannot be done. Apple included a built-in emulation layer called Rosetta to run PPC apps on Intel Macs (no longer supported in Lion, if I'm not mistaken), but there was never a way to go backwards, and realistically, there never will be.
 
There's no real need to guess at this stuff... a quick search will give you all the knowledge that you need:
Darwin is the core set of components upon which OS X is based.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_(operating_system)
Rosetta is the code translator that allows Intel Macs to run older PPC apps
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_(software)
Unfortunately, there's no translator layer to run intel apps on PPC Macs.

You can install, or copy an intel app to a PPC system. You can copy any app to an older Mac, but that doesn't mean that app is usable. In fact, if the installer runs, it will normally tell you that you can't install an app, when it can't run anyway.
Because the architecture is not compatible, it can't run.

If you need to run an intel-only app, then you need intel hardware (an intel Mac)
 
LeoTheLion89 said:
i thought the emulator used was called Darwin
Click to expand...
You are confusing Darwin with Darwine. Darwin is the certified UNIX 03 underpinning of MacOS X. Darwine is MacOS X port of WINE. WINE is a set of cloned Windows frameworks for Unix and Unix-like operating systems. WINE is a recurve acronym for WINE Is Not an Emulator. It is right there in the name--WINE is not an emulator. Darwine is no longer called Darwine. The latest version is simply WINE--WINE 1.2.3 to be specific.

WINE allows Intel-based Windows applications to run natively on Intel-based Unix/Unix-like computers. Prior to the Intel transition, there was indeed an effort to port Darwine to PPC. Because Windows applications use Intel executable code, an emulator was needed. The Darwine-PPC effort looked to integrate the QEMU emulator into the project. While Macs were based on the PPC family, however, Darwine did not imply PPC. Darwin ran perfectly fine on Intel-based PCs. Darwine worked as well as any other port of WINE on Intel-based computers.

After Apple announced the switch to Intel, the Darwine-PPC effort ended.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top