> Are you forgetting the time they sent local filesystem searches to some spyware company? That was not a remote hole. > OSX is a toxic, vendor-supplied-malwa

> Are you forgetting the time they sent local filesystem searches to some spyware company? That was not a remote hole. > OSX is a toxic, vendor-supplied-malware infested cesspit that I've never used Sure, but is any of the vendor-supplied malware in that cesspit a remote hole? I'm happy to have broad, open-ended arguments about who sucks more in new and innovative ways, but let's finish the argument we're already having first. Is OpenBSD meaningfully more secure than other operating systems on the axis they are choosing to advertise, namely "remote holes in the default install," than other OSes? In particular, whatever you believe about deliberate backdoors, toxic cesspits, being actively opposed to security, etc., none of that is something the choice of programming language is in any way relevant to. If Theo's argument were "We don't need Rust because we are the only operating system that isn't actively opposed to security, so everyone else has lost the game already," we'd be having a very different conversation. But it's not and we aren't.