Your argument has proven time and time again to be just so
much FUD from Microsoft.
"Proven"? How so - by strength of assertion?
Mac OSX runs on top of FreeBSD a *NIX operating system.
It's security model is so much more advanced over Windoze that
there is no comparison. It has NOTHING to do with numbers of computers
being used. Macs are targeted less because the chances of doing any real
damage to a Mac is so much less as to be almost insignificant from the
operating system's point of view.
I don't think one can claim to know why these folks do what they do.
You are describing how MacOS and *NIX are intended to work, which is
all very fine and noble, but that rests on an abstraction layer held
up by code. Within that layer are defects, some of which may be
exploitable, and that influences what *actually* may happen.
Software can (and in some cases, has) be designed to do stupid things
that create opportunities for malware. When MS Office first
introduced auto-running macros within "documents", and the first HTML
email apps passed email "message text" to browser engines to interpret
under Internet Zone settings, there were bulges in malware that took
advantage of these opportunities.
Today's malware scene is a bit different.
There are still many attacks made on user judgement, and these are
often aided by bad software design that hides info from the user (or
allows this info to be falsified by the malware).
At the other extreme are clickless attacks that leverage defects in
code that facilitate results which bear no relationship to what the
code was designed to do. The roots of these exploitable code defects
are deep and, in many cases, cross-platform. Simply intending an OS
to work better is in itself not going to avoid this problem.
It's interesting to view the incidence of code defects across software
and platforms from a non-platform/vendor source. You may find some
variance this way and that, but you'll find that any non-trivial
software will have defects of this kind.
What is different is whether these defects are exploited by malware or
not, and whether this happens sooner than later. I would say Windows
is more likely to have such defects discovered (more folks are testing
it to see if they can break in) and exploited, because it represents a
bigger and more homogenious target than *NIX.
------------ ----- --- -- - - - -
Drugs are usually safe. Inject? (Y/n)
