>You misread his comment. He is saying OS X was not released with in-depth defense mechanisms. Thus its release date is of no consequence. Really? 2001-2002 i

>You misread his comment. He is saying OS X was not released with in-depth defense mechanisms. Thus its release date is of no consequence. Really? 2001-2002 is when OS X got in depth defense mechanisms, thus the date is relevant-- it proves shows how full of it he is. So, I didn't misread the comment, I rebutted it by citing the date. >Forgive me for my skepticism, but what security concerns, exactly, did Apple face in 1987? 1987 was in the middle of the emergence of word processors. And the emergence of viruses. Where were a real problem on the Mac from 1987-1990. >That's the thing, how is it robust and secure if Apple takes months to release security updates for said open-source software? Because just shipping patches without testing them produces a brittle OS and opens them up to having security holes. I'm tired of these argument-from-ignorance claims that seem to be common on hacker news. If you're going to disagree with me, at least please take the time to read what I wrote and comprehend it and disagree with what I'm saying. Don't just dash off some response based on your lack of knowledge of history, and what I'm arguing.