Does Mac Malware Benefit From Obscurity No! Proved By Data. &A#JD1Tg!d8!' 2470

Oh this I gotta read. Go for it:

Excuse me, but you just proved my point!!! You are quite right! The idiotic myth that I busted is insisting that there IS "reason to suppose that the proportion of privates heads who write malware should necessarily follow market share." DING! BINGO! Get it?!

Really? Based on what data? 'buttume' makes an 'butt' out of 'you' and 'me'. Lame, I know. But you need to justify this. Please do. It would explain things.

HAHAHAHAHAHA! I am afraid to read on!

OMG! You have to be f*cking kidding! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! OK stop or I'll wet my shorts.

Again, based on what facts? I can prove my point with data, as stated in the breastle (albeit a stupid breastle) of this thread.

I think we can at least agree that, for some reason or other, privateshead malware writers have it in for Windows at an extremely disproportionate level compared to their malware writing for Mac.

What I challenge folks to do is to explain why this exists.

The ultra-stupid myth that the 'obscurity' of Mac OS X is the reason why it has only 5 pieces of malware (55 malware in the entire history of the Mac) has been destroyed once and for all. It was never true. It has zero justification. Anyone making that argument is ignorant. A better explanation is required. Make it please.

I have been busy this week, but forthcoming sometime soon will be a few possible explanations I have dug up on the net. They won't be definitive, but they will be worth consideration. The 'obscurity' myth is NOT worth consideration.

-- Fortune Magazine, 11-29-05: What's your computer setup today? Frederick Brooks: I happily use a Macintosh. It's not been equalled for ease of use, and I want my computer to be a tool, not a challenge. Frederick Brooks is the author of 'The Mythical Man Month'. He spearheaded the movement to modernize computer software engineering in 1975