Comments on: A Vista Kind of Week http://www.stevenlevy.com/index.php/2007/02/04/a-vista-kind-of-week/ Fri, 30 Jul 2010 10:51:14 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4 by: Richard http://www.stevenlevy.com/index.php/2007/02/04/a-vista-kind-of-week/#comment-1934 Fri, 23 Feb 2007 02:53:47 +0000 http://www.stevenlevy.com/index.php/2007/02/04/a-vista-kind-of-week/#comment-1934 Steven: I have a very different persepctive on your Bill Gates interview, and John Gruber's (Daring Fireball) characterization of it. People can read it on my blog, filled under Apple or Internet. Steven:

I have a very different persepctive on your Bill Gates interview, and John Gruber’s (Daring Fireball) characterization of it.

People can read it on my blog, filled under Apple or Internet.

]]> by: John http://www.stevenlevy.com/index.php/2007/02/04/a-vista-kind-of-week/#comment-1908 Thu, 22 Feb 2007 15:42:28 +0000 http://www.stevenlevy.com/index.php/2007/02/04/a-vista-kind-of-week/#comment-1908 As a journalist, you should expect more from yourself. Bill Gates can make all the claims he wants. It is your job to present as an objective presentation of Bill Gates' views as possible. Even if you did not want to derail the interview, you could have easily added a statement that his claims could not be corroborated. That would have been too easy, though. It is articles like these and your poor rationalization that hurt journalism's reputation. I run into Windows users constantly who spout quotes from articles and interviews such as this. You clearly don't know much about your readers, if you truly believe your claim that most people see through Gates' bias. As a journalist, you should expect more from yourself. Bill Gates can make all the claims he wants. It is your job to present as an objective presentation of Bill Gates’ views as possible. Even if you did not want to derail the interview, you could have easily added a statement that his claims could not be corroborated. That would have been too easy, though. It is articles like these and your poor rationalization that hurt journalism’s reputation. I run into Windows users constantly who spout quotes from articles and interviews such as this. You clearly don’t know much about your readers, if you truly believe your claim that most people see through Gates’ bias.

]]> by: Terry http://www.stevenlevy.com/index.php/2007/02/04/a-vista-kind-of-week/#comment-1887 Thu, 22 Feb 2007 06:54:47 +0000 http://www.stevenlevy.com/index.php/2007/02/04/a-vista-kind-of-week/#comment-1887 Translation: If you don't suck up to Gates you'll never get another interview from him. Sad and pathetic. Translation: If you don’t suck up to Gates you’ll never get another interview from him. Sad and pathetic.

]]> by: cubeboy http://www.stevenlevy.com/index.php/2007/02/04/a-vista-kind-of-week/#comment-1407 Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:38:48 +0000 http://www.stevenlevy.com/index.php/2007/02/04/a-vista-kind-of-week/#comment-1407 Well, Steven, you wanted to focus on "drawing out the genuinely interesting things that person has to say", and I think you were incredibly successful, although accidentally. Quoting Gates on his unbelievably warped characterization of PC vs. Mac security says more about him and his state of mind than anything he was prepared to feed you. There's really no need to "press him further" -- the evidence speaks for itself. Well, Steven, you wanted to focus on “drawing out the genuinely interesting things that person has to say”, and I think you were incredibly successful, although accidentally. Quoting Gates on his unbelievably warped characterization of PC vs. Mac security says more about him and his state of mind than anything he was prepared to feed you. There’s really no need to “press him further” — the evidence speaks for itself.

]]> by: Dr. Macenstein http://www.stevenlevy.com/index.php/2007/02/04/a-vista-kind-of-week/#comment-1102 Tue, 06 Feb 2007 22:30:16 +0000 http://www.stevenlevy.com/index.php/2007/02/04/a-vista-kind-of-week/#comment-1102 I think you should. Even if you personally don't consider the issue to be important enough to pursue, your interview created much attention in the Mac community, and tech/geek community in general. The point of a journalist is to write stories that resonate with an audience. It is also to bring attention (and ad revenue) to the sites hosting it. Why not cover such a controversial topic? I would, but I am too lazy. And Bishop should have challenged this line: "Gates: No, no serious security researcher would challenge that. You have to think about it coupled with Windows Update, where we’ve got a vigilance and a quickness of updating that you just don’t find other places. Both the operating system itself, and the service that we’ve created around that." with the fact that the Mac has an automatic software update feature (and has since before OS X) that also can immediately install security updates. Just having a system in place to repair attacks does not mean you are more secure. Having less attacks does. Apple is just as quick at patching exploits as Microsoft, and it does so for exploits that, to date, have all been theoretical. No exploit has ever been released on the web that spread through the Mac community running amok. There is being a fan boy (which I am), and then there is lying to deliberately mislead the public. Please look into it. -The Doc I think you should.
Even if you personally don’t consider the issue to be important enough to pursue, your interview created much attention in the Mac community, and tech/geek community in general. The point of a journalist is to write stories that resonate with an audience. It is also to bring attention (and ad revenue) to the sites hosting it. Why not cover such a controversial topic?

I would, but I am too lazy.

And Bishop should have challenged this line: “Gates: No, no serious security researcher would challenge that. You have to think about it coupled with Windows Update, where we’ve got a vigilance and a quickness of updating that you just don’t find other places. Both the operating system itself, and the service that we’ve created around that.”

with the fact that the Mac has an automatic software update feature (and has since before OS X) that also can immediately install security updates. Just having a system in place to repair attacks does not mean you are more secure. Having less attacks does.

Apple is just as quick at patching exploits as Microsoft, and it does so for exploits that, to date, have all been theoretical. No exploit has ever been released on the web that spread through the Mac community running amok.

There is being a fan boy (which I am), and then there is lying to deliberately mislead the public.

Please look into it.

-The Doc

]]> by: George http://www.stevenlevy.com/index.php/2007/02/04/a-vista-kind-of-week/#comment-1071 Tue, 06 Feb 2007 09:54:09 +0000 http://www.stevenlevy.com/index.php/2007/02/04/a-vista-kind-of-week/#comment-1071 Steven, Perhaps you didn't really have a change to read what Macenstein wrote on the blog post you linked to, but he wasn't referring to any of the security claims -- an admittedly confusing and complex topic. Rather he was suggesting that you follow-up on Mr. Gates's apparent historical revisionism in regards to the “File, Edit, View, Help” menu and other such claims. Steven,

Perhaps you didn’t really have a change to read what Macenstein wrote on the blog post you linked to, but he wasn’t referring to any of the security claims — an admittedly confusing and complex topic. Rather he was suggesting that you follow-up on Mr. Gates’s apparent historical revisionism in regards to the “File, Edit, View, Help” menu and other such claims.

]]> by: Jonathan http://www.stevenlevy.com/index.php/2007/02/04/a-vista-kind-of-week/#comment-1058 Mon, 05 Feb 2007 23:41:00 +0000 http://www.stevenlevy.com/index.php/2007/02/04/a-vista-kind-of-week/#comment-1058 You know, when posting your article you could have added a [sic] and put in an editorial comment stating that what Gates said was completely inaccurate (wrt the total exploits for the Mac being discovered every day - afaik, there have been less than 10 true, critical full exploits disclosed since OS X was first released over 5 years ago, and certainly less than 20 and most definitely not one a day) and probably a mistake on his part made in the heat of the moment (or, far more likely IMO, a deliberate distortion of the MOAB project to spread FUD about OS X). It is your prerogative (and I would say your obligation to your readers) as the editor of your posted content. You know, when posting your article you could have added a [sic] and put in an editorial comment stating that what Gates said was completely inaccurate (wrt the total exploits for the Mac being discovered every day - afaik, there have been less than 10 true, critical full exploits disclosed since OS X was first released over 5 years ago, and certainly less than 20 and most definitely not one a day) and probably a mistake on his part made in the heat of the moment (or, far more likely IMO, a deliberate distortion of the MOAB project to spread FUD about OS X). It is your prerogative (and I would say your obligation to your readers) as the editor of your posted content.

]]> by: Splashman http://www.stevenlevy.com/index.php/2007/02/04/a-vista-kind-of-week/#comment-1056 Mon, 05 Feb 2007 22:50:05 +0000 http://www.stevenlevy.com/index.php/2007/02/04/a-vista-kind-of-week/#comment-1056 Mr. Levy, Gates made a claim about OS X ("Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally") that has at least the following two properties: 1) Explosive. Given that the average Newsweek reader (and even a fair bit of the techie population) doesn't know the difference between an exploit and a virus, the natural assumption will be that Mac security is, in fact, much worse than Windows. And given that there are currently ZERO Mac viruses in the wild, Gates' claim was completely, and obviously, over the top. 2) Easily verifiable. Since you profess to respect John Gruber "a lot", you could have e-mailed a query to him. I'm guessing 5 minutes later you would have had a response. Invoking Woodward and Bernstein is disingenuous. I understand you want to make good use of your time with one of the most powerful men and influential men in the world. But you are under no obligation to print every word he states, correct? If Gates had stated that Macs explode when you triple-click the mouse on the word "Microsoft," would you have printed that? Sure, the average Gizmodo reader will understand Gates speaks FUD like a native, but the average online Newsweek reader (who, these days, is more and more identical to the average OFFline Newsweek reader) will assume that there is some truth amidst the sales pitch. "Sure, he's probably exaggerating, but obviously Macs must be no more secure than Windows." You have done your readers a disservice, and I suspect your motivation is nothing more complicated than riling up the Mac fanboys and ratcheting up your web traffic. The world needs more truth, less sensationalism. Mr. Levy, Gates made a claim about OS X (”Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally”) that has at least the following two properties:

1) Explosive. Given that the average Newsweek reader (and even a fair bit of the techie population) doesn’t know the difference between an exploit and a virus, the natural assumption will be that Mac security is, in fact, much worse than Windows. And given that there are currently ZERO Mac viruses in the wild, Gates’ claim was completely, and obviously, over the top.

2) Easily verifiable. Since you profess to respect John Gruber “a lot”, you could have e-mailed a query to him. I’m guessing 5 minutes later you would have had a response. Invoking Woodward and Bernstein is disingenuous.

I understand you want to make good use of your time with one of the most powerful men and influential men in the world. But you are under no obligation to print every word he states, correct? If Gates had stated that Macs explode when you triple-click the mouse on the word “Microsoft,” would you have printed that?

Sure, the average Gizmodo reader will understand Gates speaks FUD like a native, but the average online Newsweek reader (who, these days, is more and more identical to the average OFFline Newsweek reader) will assume that there is some truth amidst the sales pitch. “Sure, he’s probably exaggerating, but obviously Macs must be no more secure than Windows.”

You have done your readers a disservice, and I suspect your motivation is nothing more complicated than riling up the Mac fanboys and ratcheting up your web traffic.

The world needs more truth, less sensationalism.

]]> by: Rob http://www.stevenlevy.com/index.php/2007/02/04/a-vista-kind-of-week/#comment-1046 Mon, 05 Feb 2007 19:19:28 +0000 http://www.stevenlevy.com/index.php/2007/02/04/a-vista-kind-of-week/#comment-1046 Whether you agree with Gruber and the others or not, you knew that a lot of what Gates was saying about Apple was questionable at best, so it would have been prudent to push him on some of his claims at least a little bit. Either way, Bill Gates came off looking like quite a delusional and paranoid individual during the interview. It's rather obvious that Steve Jobs is getting under his skin, and that Apple must be impacting their bottom line at Microsoft in some significant way as well. Whether you agree with Gruber and the others or not, you knew that a lot of what Gates was saying about Apple was questionable at best, so it would have been prudent to push him on some of his claims at least a little bit. Either way, Bill Gates came off looking like quite a delusional and paranoid individual during the interview. It’s rather obvious that Steve Jobs is getting under his skin, and that Apple must be impacting their bottom line at Microsoft in some significant way as well.

]]>