Your last three words are the telling point; "at the moment". The edgewater / kenilworth thing, I'm Australian and thus entirely geographically ignorant about

Your last three words are the telling point; "at the moment". The edgewater / kenilworth thing, I'm Australian and thus entirely geographically ignorant about US locations, but thanks for the tip. I still don't believe that the metaphor stands up at all well. For example, I could write a really simple operating system that consisted of pretty much nothing but a filesystem and a tcp/ip stack, in order to see any of the content on the disk all you need to do is telnet to port 31337 and enter the string "bobsyeruncle^M" and it just streams out the contents of the attached filesystem. This operating system would be invulnerable to all windows viruses and worms on the net, just like OS X, but to say that it is "more secure than windows" is extremely disingenuous at best. If for some completely bizarre reason it ever became popular, putting that claim to the test would show even Joe Sixpack that it was indeed not at all more secure than windows. This is the same as the situation with OS X, if it gains majority market share it will have to deal with the same hostile environment windows currently has to deal with in terms of attackers, worms, viruses, exploits, etc. Nobody at the moment is bothering because it is only (8?9?)% and thus they can pretend that OS X is immune to viruses just like I could pretend my theoretical operating system is immune to viruses. That doesn't make it so.