What I still read here is a ridiculous claim that Unix permissions prevent viruses (https://www.google.com/search?q=os+x+privilege+escalation -- to say nothing about the damage that can be done just compromising the local user) and a clear demonstration that you don't know how Windows security works. When confronted with counterpoints you just say something along the lines of "I never knew about that so I must have been right all along."
>What I still read here is a ridiculous claim that Unix permissions prevent viruses
Not ridiculous, scientific. Perhaps you can't think straight. The fact that you can write viruses taking advantage of mechanisms such as buffer overflows to create privilege escalation, doesn't mean that permissions don't prevent the kind of viruses which are based on simple copy propagation. You know, like all the popular viruses back in the DOS, early Windows, Amiga, Atari etc era.
And I don't really appreciate the strawman you resorted to use (using "unix permissions prevent viruses" as if I said they make them impossible, instead of prevent certain classes of them).
>When confronted with counterpoints you just say something along the lines of "I never knew about that so I must have been right all along."
Are you kidding me? What counterpoints? I know everything you said about Windows XP. How about actually quoting what I said (it's just above your comment), instead of putting strawmans in quotes and pretending it was mine?
FACTS: Windows XP has a default admin account. Most people had full permissions to install and touch anything, and nether bothered, neither did the OS nagged them, to create a restricted account. Heck, the admin account even had empty password in most installations (as was the default).
That you could set up restricted accounts and permissions doesn't mean a thing. And I never said that I didn't know about them (another strawman you had to resort to) -- I said they were irrelevant because most users didn't use them and the OS didn't force you to.
