[supercat]

Having a monoculture is dangerous; if different companies use different systems which have different security holes, the risks of a massive worm or virus attack are smaller than if everyone has the same security holes, even though in the former case the total number of security holes may be larger.

It may well be that the only reason for the smaller number of attacks on Apples and Linux systems is that they're less popular and present a less-appealing tharget, even if there are no technical security advantages to them, the fact that they represent a smaller target is a major practical advantage.

Indeed, my biggest complaint with the DOJ's attacks on Microsoft is that they completely ignored the national security implications of having an OS monoculture. Pricing and trade practices pale in importance compared to that.

[Bush2000]

Having a monoculture is dangerous...

Having the converse is far more expensive. And, after all, perfect security at infinite cost isn't the goal -- it's sufficient security.

It may well be that the only reason for the smaller number of attacks on Apples and Linux systems is that they're less popular and present a less-appealing tharget, even if there are no technical security advantages to them, the fact that they represent a smaller target is a major practical advantage.

Assuming that the target doesn't become more attractive if/when people start moving in that direction...

Indeed, my biggest complaint with the DOJ's attacks on Microsoft is that they completely ignored the national security implications of having an OS monoculture. Pricing and trade practices pale in importance compared to that.

You want the DOJ to tell us what OSes we should use?!? I hope that wasn't your intent.