3 ms·

I agree that nothing about the market share argument has been proven, true or false. The evidence only shows that the market share argument is false or that we

I agree that nothing about the market share argument has been proven, true or false. The evidence only shows that the market share argument is false or that we simply haven't reached the threshold yet. But: "The market share argument implicitly rejects the idea that OS X is significantly more secure than Windows..." This is the idea I'm curious about. Perhaps there are arguments that make the case that OS X is signicantly (and inherently) more secure than Windows that I've missed, and if that's the case, I'd appreciate someone directing me at them. If the market share argument is false, which I grant that it very well could be, I'm interested in the reasons that might be so. Inherent security of OS X could be one reason. Another could be something specific to do with malware that I don't know or understand because I'm not that familiar with the subject. I'm saying I understand the market share argument, and it seems straightforward and logical. I have not seen a counter-argument, but if there is one, I'd like to see it. Gruber does not produce a counter-argument. I'm not asking for evidence either way, because I don't think there is any yet. I'm asking for an argument.

wtallis 15y ago
I'm not saying the market share argument is illogical. I'm saying it's not likely to be true. The extent to which that can be proven is limited by the lack of specific predictions to be falsified. At the moment, all I can say is that a significant fraction of the predictions that could have been made a decade ago have been falsified. For example, the Mac malware explosion has not happened yet, and Mac market share is around 10%, so we can conclude that Macs aren't 10 times easier to attack than Windows targets. If Mac market share is more like 15%, then Macs can't be much more than 5 times easier to attack.

wtallis 15y ago

I'm not saying the market share argument is illogical. I'm saying it's not likely to be true. The extent to which that can be proven is limited by the lack of specific predictions to be falsified. At the moment, all I can say is that a significant fraction of the predictions that could have been made a decade ago have been falsified. For example, the Mac malware explosion has not happened yet, and Mac market share is around 10%, so we can conclude that Macs aren't 10 times easier to attack than Windows targets. If Mac market share is more like 15%, then Macs can't be much more than 5 times easier to attack.