[aft_lizard]

A OS is trully only as secure as the idiot behind the keyboard, but hey removing that wild variable. I would swallow my microsoft lovin' tongue and say Mac's for a couple of reasons. Main one being the closed or limited hardware and software that can work with the OS.

[Richard Kimball]

Seems like a good article. The guy seems knowledgeable about both OS's, and doesn't seem to have an ax to grind. Although I'm not familiar with Linux, what he states about Apple seems fair. The design premise for Apple is to put the features most likely to be desired and needed right out front in an easily accessible format, while burying the tweaks for the people who want to get out the manuals and goof with programming. Linux, OTOH, is still more of an "under the hood" OS, which tends to invite tweaking, but expecting users to have enough knowledge not to goof up their system. What he's describing seems to fit those philosophies.

I think a person like him would probably be marginally more secure on a Linux system, because he's knowledgeable and comfortable with the options. I'm not sure it would be true for an average user.

[PajamaTruthMafia]

Comparing Unix to Mac OS is like comparing a swiss army knife to a butter knife.

Security is a function of your desirability as a target.

Mac's aren't a big target because there aren't many (relatively speaking) and very few, are doing anything worth attacking.

Where are hackers going to spend their time? On Unix and Win based machines which run virtually every where and everything or Macs which are mostly in homes and schools? It's the same reason so few hardware or software companies bother making products for the platform - in many cases, it's just no worth the cost.

[L98Fiero]

Ahh, PC security. The global warming of the computer industry.