Yes, it was the annual hackfests. I only know two people with OSX, and neither one has been compromised. Whether the Unix underpinnings make OSX more secure? I think the hacks, but maybe others recall better, were due to applications and privilege escalation.
I am really not sure what to conclude about real world safety. If you set up all three systems the same way, with the same basic precautions, would there be any significant differences in security? Don't know. I do know that I have had two people recently, one with 7 and one with XP, ask me for help with compromised systems. I refuse to try to disinfect now, so one who did not want to risk it again got Mandriva, with which he is very happy, in fact, despite my efforts to explain, I suspect he may think its Windows 8 or 9, and the other got an OEM copy of 7, and we will be doing a reformat and reinstall shortly. I do think there is a very different attitude on the part of developers. Linux, you see it in everything, is completely paranoid about security. I recall years ago when the kde dialer went to enormous lengths to take root privileges for the shortest possible and most limited time. Apple I think is quite casual because of years of low risk. Windows seems to have this strange mixture of not taking the most basic precautions, and then layering on all kinds of stuff to protect it. I have never heard of a non-server compromised Linux install. -- View this message in context: http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/OT-Browsing-the-internet-It-is-safer-from-Linux-tp3020657p3021414.html Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution