I never said anything about other OSes being flawless -- of course all software (operating systems included) has flaws. Only trivial programs can be said to be flawless; more than about 10,000 lines of code and flaws will be there, to be ferreted out over many years of use. It's the way it is.
The object of security and robustness is not to be "perfect", but to be able to successfully and effectively defend against attacks. Which Unix does, and Windows still does not. Yes, Win7 is a great improvement over prior releases. No, it's still nothing like it should be; that will require extensive if not total replacement of the ancient NT codebase. Win7 is still NT.
What YOU said that made a mockery of the discussion was that because Unix had one or two demonstrable worms/viruses in the past 20 years, that it was somehow equivalent to Windows, which has something around 100,000 of them over the same period.
And when I challenged you to name even four in the past decade or so, you folded -- can't be done.
So I'm hardly agreeing with you, because your argument is flawed -- two does not equal tens of thousands, especially when those two were rendered inoperable many years ago. Windows 7 is still vulnerable to lots of current viruses -- and THAT IS THE TOPIC OF THE THREAD. HELLO? Your attempt to divert the thread to something else (and something trivially disprovable at that) failed.
> We’re done.
I agree. Thanks for playing, and have a great day. :)
I never said anything about equivalency. That is quite simply a lie on your part. I said Unix has malware targeted at it too, that’s it. Anything past that is from you.