Well, I was wondering where you were. Welcome.
Shall I resurrect your indignation when Apple allowed (in your words) that"critical" system flaw to continue for about 5 weeks before patching it and compare those 35 days to Microsoft's 200 (28 weeks)?
Several times, and several posters, you have been pointed to articles written by experts in Computer and Network security that have enumerated the superiority of the Macintosh platform over Windows for security and you still sing the same song.
Bush, the insecurities of Mac OS-X are the insecurities of UNIX, one of the most secure operating systems in the world.
Let's talk "venerable" shall we?
Windows in its variations has a history of about 19 years counting from its inception incarnation as a DOS shell named "Interface Manager" renamed to d Windows 1.0 before its release in 1985. As a true OPERATING SYSTEM, we should really only give it 9 years when it was no longer really a DOS shell with the introduction of Windows 95 (although it still needed DOS to even get started). Of course, THAT version is not related the current XP version because that line of Windows was a dead end. Windows XP is based on Windows 2000 (year 2000, age 4) which in turn was based on Windows NT (March 1994, age 10). Over these ten years a comparatively small number of Microsoft Engineers have been overseeing the development and security of Windows 2000 - XP.
On the UNIX (1969, age 35) side, we have an unbroken (although many branched) development since 1969 with legions of developers modifying and improving the code. More people by at least an order of magnitude have looked at the UNIX code and tested and improved its security. Number of years of development = 10.
So, on one side we have the Microsoft OS... maintained by one company, a small group of developers responsible for its proprietary code... and on the other side we have an open-source multi-developer OS... developed by thousands of people working to improve the utility and security of UNIX. Number of years of development = 35.
Which do you think might be more secure?
Let's see what a computer security expert has to say about Linux, OSX, and Microsoft Windows, shall we?
'There are about 60,000 viruses known for Windows, 40 or so for the Macintosh, about 5 for commercial Unix versions, and perhaps 40 for Linux. Most of the Windows viruses are not important, but many hundreds have caused widespread damage. Two or three of the Macintosh viruses were widespread enough to be of importance. None of the Unix or Linux viruses became widespread - most were confined to the laboratory.'
So there are far fewer viruses for Mac OS X and Linux. It's true that those two operating systems do not have monopoly numbers, though in some industries they have substantial numbers of users. But even if Linux becomes the dominant desktop computing platform, and Mac OS X continues its growth in businesses and homes, these Unix-based OS's will never experience all of the problems we're seeing now with email-borne viruses and worms in the Microsoft world. Why?"
". . . Microsoft's email software is able to infect a user's computer when they do something as innocuous as read an email! Don't believe me? Take a look at Microsoft Security Bulletins MS99-032, MS00-043, MS01-015, MS01-020, MS02-068, or MS03-023, for instance. Notice that's at least one for the last five years. And though Microsoft's latest versions of Outlook block most executable attachments by default, it's still possible to override those protections."
"This sort of social engineering, so easy to accomplish in Windows, requires far more steps and far greater effort on the part of the Linux user. Instead of just reading an email (... just reading an email?!?), a Linux user would have to read the email, save the attachment, give the attachment executable permissions, and then run the executable. Even as less sophisticated users begin to migrate to Linux, they may not understand exactly why they can't just execute attachments, but they will still have to go through the steps. . .
"due to the strong separation between normal users and the privileged root user, our Linux user would have to be running as root to really do any damage to the system. He could damage his /home directory, but that's about it. So the above steps now become the following: read, save, become root, give executable permissions, run. The more steps, the less likely a virus infection becomes, and certainly the less likely a catastrophically spreading virus becomes. And since Linux users are taught from the get-go to never run as root, and since Mac OS X doesn't even allow users to use the root account unless they first enable the option, it's obvious the likelihood of email-driven viruses and worms lessens on those platforms.
Unfortunately, running as root (or Administrator) is common in the Windows world. In fact, Microsoft is still engaging in this risky behavior. Windows XP, supposed Microsoft's most secure desktop operating system, automatically makes the first named user of the system an Administrator, with the power to do anything he wants to the computer. . . "
". . . Even if the OS has been set up correctly, with an Administrator account and a non-privileged user account, things are still not copasetic. On a Windows system, programs installed by a non-Administrative user can still add DLLs and other system files that can be run at a level of permission that damages the system itself. Even worse, the collection of files on a Windows system - the operating system, the applications, and the user data - can't be kept apart from each other. Things are intermingled to a degree that makes it unlikely that they will ever be satisfactorily sorted out in any sensibly secure fashion."
and finally:
"Security is, as we all know, a process, not a product. So when you use Linux (Or UNIX, or OS-X - Swordmaker), you're not using a perfectly safe OS. There is no such thing. But Linux and Mac OS X establish a more secure footing than Microsoft Windows, one that makes it far harder for viruses to take hold in the first place, but if one does take hold, harder to damage the system, but if one succeeds in damaging the system, harder to spread to other machines and repeat the process. When it comes to email-borne viruses and worms, Linux may not be completely immune - after all, nothing is immune to human gullibility and stupidity - but it is much more resistant. To mess up a Linux box, you need to work at it; to mess up your Windows box, you just need to work on it. I know which one I'll trust. How about you?
Me, I chose UNIX based Macintosh OS-X.3 Panther.