Well the fact they're easily refuted shows how much i use windows in daily bases (almost 0%)
my guess (based on rumors) is that even though ms implements those security measures, she leaves some weaknesses open intentionally (sony rootkit came to mind)
actually i was thinking more about OpenBSD instead of OSX and clump them together as unix
but you haven't refuted my main point: if popularity plays a role THAT much, then why unix servers (more popular, more secure, more powerful, more damaging) are less compromised?
Well, let's turn that around. In the years from 1995 through 1998, Windows security was black magic both to defenders and attackers --- Win32 attacks didn't really mainstream until Solar Designer and Matt Conover broke the story on how to exploit overflows in the heap.
During the same time period, Unix systems --- and particularly SunOS/Solaris --- were positively riddled with trivially exploitable stack overflows. Number of Solaris worms and viruses during that time period? Zero.
I'm sort of digressing, but, can you come up with a logic that explains why OS X virus scarcity is about the intrinsic security of OS X and still describes the '90s?
I don't think malware prevalance has much to do with intrinsic OS security at all.
Also: smart not to lump OS X in with other Unixes. OS X has a very different, much more difficult challenge to deal with than server Linux.
my guess (based on rumors) is that even though ms implements those security measures, she leaves some weaknesses open intentionally (sony rootkit came to mind)
actually i was thinking more about OpenBSD instead of OSX and clump them together as unix
but you haven't refuted my main point: if popularity plays a role THAT much, then why unix servers (more popular, more secure, more powerful, more damaging) are less compromised?