Re: Apple To Allow Third Party Apps ON iPhone

"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
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.

"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.

http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/adv...x=14&draw.y=14

<snip>

No, you MORON...

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.

Verizon passed on the iPhone.


"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.

Verizon passed on the iPhone.


"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 ****.
>
> 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...

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.

> 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.

--

Immunity is better than innoculation.

Peter

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

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?



"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.
>

There is that "deflection" again...

Can't argue the facts, so Oxford goes the chicken **** 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 ****.
>
> 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.

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

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?

Wasn't W re-elected in 2004?

-- Larry

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.

> 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.

--

Immunity is better than innoculation.

Peter