Too true. Marketshare in itself does not imply security or lack of. But logic does seem to dictate that those who go after the insecure OS's go after the one with larger marketshare since they don't seem to go after the one with smaller marketshare which has been proven to be no more secure. As has been said time and time again, OS X is security by obscurity, not by design. But the end result for the user is more security just the same.
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 12:51 PM, TPiwowar <t...@tjpa.com> wrote: > > > What "security failures." Should you truthfully be calling it "discovery of > potential flaws?" It ain't a "security failure" if it hasn't been exploited > and it hasn't. Just like you are potentially deceased, but I'm sure you > don't want us to consider you dead. By your faulty logic we are all dead > already. > > ...as Apple market share augments, its desirability as a target... >> > > This is more faulty logic. Products with large market shares do not have to > be defective. You use one company, M$, as your model and come up with wild > assertions. You are not thinking straight. > > > ************************************************************************* ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *************************************************************************
