Bullshit like this is why anonymous posting shouldn't exist.

Who is still using a 486 and also needs modern kernel features? Let them run an older kernel. They are going to have to run older software anyway because a 486 with more than about 16MB is rare, and modern Linux distributions require multiple GB of RAM.

This is not even vaguely close to true, although classic MacOS was designed like security didn't matter. All of these operating systems were built after the invention of the computer virus and two of them had security baked in. The third required two antivirus programs for relative safety (gatekeeper and disinfectant) because it had no security, which was always stupid. The modern MacOS is descended from an OS where security was understood to matter. The state of the art in computer security was simply undeveloped compared to what it is today.

When China demanded that vendors operating app stores bend over completely for fascism, Google pulled out and Apple did not. Thus we knew conclusively that they would rather support fascism than leave any amount of money on the table.

Now we (Apple's detractors on this issue) can see that exactly what we predicted has come to pass. Apple is joyfully assisting with oppression anywhere they can do so. To them, government demands for totalitarianism are irrelevant, because Apple sees no problem with forcing users to behave a specific way for their benefit to the detriment of their freedom. Why would they see government oppression in any other way than simply the terms under which they must operate in order to maximize profit?

Corporations never have qualms about bad behavior, but sometimes the people who operate them do. This appears not to be the case for Apple.

Oh no, there is no victory. Your summary is pretty good here. But the idea that Linux is provably less secure because old bugs were found is flatly wrong. They were found late, but they were indeed found. How many ancient bugs are lurking in proprietary software that nobody has found for positive reasons and made full disclosures of so affected parties know they need to mitigate? Nobody knows!

Server OSes are more likely to have older versions of software and then backport fixes. Desktop OSes are more likely to default to doing automatic updates, or at least hassling the user to do them.

The only difference is that servers are more likely to have more outdated software.

Love of convenience, I guess. I often find it astonishing myself. The software might do 100 times more but it takes 1000 times as much memory...

Windows 11 requires 4GB to "run". In my experience, MS defines "run" as "very low values of 'run'"

Linux underpins the internet. It's the primary server OS on the planet. High-value data is held on Linux systems. The idea that it's not profitable to attack those targets is silly. They're harder to attack. People still do it. That's why there are still ssh port scans for example.

Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.

It is, but IME a lot of software needs architectural changes to work on it, similar to when you're trying to build software for Windows in cygwin. That's one reason I decided it wasn't worth the hassle back when I was running it.

When it comes to being allowed to do what you want with your computer, it's a lot more like Windows than it is like Linux. And it's been getting worse.

Now tell us how many similar bugs are in Windows, and will be found even without the obscurity of closed source. You don't know, because you depend on Microsoft to tell you when they fuck up, but you're declaring this a victory for Microsoft anyway? Do fucking tell.

No, 2MB was never enough for a Linux desktop. I had 8MB on my 386 and it was only just sufficient.

My point is everything about that sentence could be wrong.