&quot;As you have guessed by now I am some kind of allergic to this... those idealistic over-simplifications... drawing everything in black and white...&quot;<p>I avoid oversimplifications, too. Yet, most of what the author wrote was proven by precedent. Only grip I have is calling Linux anti-security and anti-privacy given how much good work in those used the platform. Gotta be a kernel by kernel and distro by distro judgment on that. Rest seems accurate.<p>&quot;Some of the OS X users I know are incredible technology-orientated and privacy concerned people, should I draw the conclusion they are being overly naive by not using OpenBSD for everything?&quot;<p>The conclusion is that they prefer to use OS X. That simple. Far as its security, it&#x27;s made by a company that spent a long time lying to its users that they were immune to malware because Mac&#x27;s were just inherently secure. They added lots of mitigations sometimes 10 years behind Windows and UNIX per one firm. I recall one vulnerability where an administrative service required a username and password for log-in but <i>didn&#x27;t check it against database</i>. If you entered <i>any password</i>, you got in.<p>Such a history of absolutely, terrible security plus deception of customers means Apple products shouldn&#x27;t be trusted for security by default. Any &quot;privacy concerned people&quot; using it are making a foolish mistake or intentionally trading away privacy for some other benefit.<p>Now, what you just saw me do was the evidence-based approach to these things. Helps cut through the noise nicely.