4 ms·

> Well, the problem is that the more hardened a system is, the more of a pain in the butt the system is to use. That may be true for Linux, but I think macOS p

> Well, the problem is that the more hardened a system is, the more of a pain in the butt the system is to use. That may be true for Linux, but I think macOS proves that it can be done.

JohnFen 3y ago
Maybe? I don' t know. The reason I don't use Apple machines is primarily because I find them a pain in the butt to use. (Also, MacOS is really BSD, isn't it? So there's not a million miles between that and Linux, security-wise.)
- CharlesW 3y ago
  > Maybe? I don't know. FWIW, macOS is my daily driver, and the last security-related hassle I can remember was related to installing an iSCSI kernel extension. IIRC it added 5-10 minutes to the task. > (Also, MacOS is really BSD, isn't it? So there's not a million miles between that and Linux, security-wise.) I wouldn't think so, but my Linux knowledge is shallow enough that I wish there were a secure-by-default Linux distribution that I could safely recommend to neophytes.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    > macOS is my daily driver, and the last security-related hassle I can remember was related to installing an iSCSI kernel extension. There are probably quite a few security-related hassles that you encounter every day, but you're just used to them and they don't bother you. Which is totally fair. In practice, the most intuitive and easy-to-use systems tend to be the ones we have used for long enough that they are second-nature. > I wish there were a secure-by-default Linux distribution that I could safely recommend to neophytes. There very likely is such a thing, honestly. But for the average user, the most popular distros are very likely "secure enough", especially if Windows-level security is considered acceptable.