> I've heard that a lot, but it may very well just be bad design. By the time another platform displaces windows we'll know.
Talking in terms of "may" and "might" isn't particularly useful. Do you have concrete examples?
> I don't think that the various unix based desktop systems are that vulnerable.
Could you cite this, please? For Mac OS X in particular.
> Whether it was 'objectively more secure' I don't know.
It is. For instance, Windows has a proper ASLR implementation, while the Mac implementation is useless.
np.
> is that the amount of malware is a function of market share.
I've heard that a lot, but it may very well just be bad design. By the time another platform displaces windows we'll know.
Whether it was 'objectively more secure' I don't know.
The number of exploits that have been found over the years is alarming, I don't think that the various unix based desktop systems are that vulnerable.
One argument why I think that is true is that if the number of windows hosts is 100x as large as the nearest competitor (and it's not, it's much less) then the 'niche' of the competitor is large enough that for a few of the entities targeting windows and getting only a small share of the machines because of inter-viral warfare (and that's pretty much the norm) the competitor is actually 'low hanging fruit'.
Assuming of course that the platform is equally easy to exploit.
The fact that we're not seeing something like that to me suggests that there really is a real difference between the various platforms in exploitability.