I agree that article is crapy and I wasted my time reading it.
APIs to restrict applications accessing your user data? Sandboxing for GUI applications? A secure GUI path, i.e., something where you can trust that this kind of window is not malicious software but your OS? Biometrics? (making non-techies into using some authentication at all)
Now look at the history of Apple. Did they or did they not always delivered same hardware performance at double the price? I'd say you paid for malware, fully and on top of that you're also proud. Q.E.D.
Is that actually true? For example, we know NSA targets sysadmins and sysadmins use desktop Linux at much higher rates than the general public.
Relatively few people use desktop Linux, but those who do may generally be more attractive targets.
Both defaults are crap. I use Total Commander / Double Commander on Win/Lin.
Quote2: "Linux still has a few (~2%) market share in the general-purpose users' segment compared to Windows. Therefore, there are not so many malicious programs that target Linux users"
Ah yeah, the famous security through obscurity. I think I prefer a battle hardened OS instead of one kept in an ivory tower. But that's not actually true. As a freelancer I use them all, and I know Linux is actually more battle hardened due to majority of cloud infrastructure running it. Which means Linux nowadays is way more under attack than Windows. Except the article's author is looking with horse blinders at the situation.
Conclusion - crappy article, not worth of a place atop of HN.