But again, nothing truly malicious like one finds in the Windows world.
You're going to have to define malicious to keep this floating as a credible statement. I would argue that there most certainly is malicious software for OS X. If it wasn't an issue, Apple wouldn't have built in malware detection in the form of XProtect.
No bots, no key loggers, no disk wipers, no ransomeware.
This is patently false.
This was the first result for "OS X keylogger" and
this the first result for "OS X ransomware"
Yes, I know about the Java insecurities and the Flash insecurities, but those are not OS X, they are third party problems.
They are third party software libraries/runtimes whose security issues manifest themselves on Macs. Therefore, they are absolutely issues relevant to Mac users. By your logic, you could argue that no malware exists for Windows because it's not an issue of Windows, it's an issue of users and other software that acts as a vector.
And if you turned off the protection because you didn't like the prompts from OS X about installing things, then you get what you deserve for leaving the door unlocked. It's not breaking and entering if I don't have to break to enter.
It doesn't matter whether or not people disable the defences Apple sets up; this doesn't discredit the idea that malware exists. By definition, a flaw exists regardless of whether or not defences are available. If you take care of your car and maintain the engine only to find it break down at some point, it still had a flaw.
I can't agree with this because, as previously stated, words mean things. Viruses destroy or damage things, other types of malware do not. I'm not "hung up on semantics," I just know when to use a specific word -- and why. As a writer and editor, that's my job.
Malware, by definition, is destructive (hence the prefix mal-). cwa107 knows how to use the word properly here and is absolutely correct in stating that not only is malware destructive but an umbrella term that includes computer viruses. So, yes, words mean things and in this case, they mean the right thing (as used).
in a text based medium like this one, accuracy is not just nice: it's absolutely vital to understanding the problem, and providing the best solution.
cwa107, again, is correct semantically in noting that not only are viruses a form of malware but he is also right in noting that OS X is susceptible to malware. So, understanding that malware is relevant to Mac users as a category of malicious software absolutely is vital to recognizing that OS X is not the impregnable fortress that it sometimes gets represented as. Only in recognizing this can we provide a better solution to issues rooted in potential malware based exploits.
I am educating them on refining their terminology so they will be able to clearly communicate in the future. [...] My aim is to reduce confusion and expedite accurate solutions.
If you do live by this mantra, then you're willing to admit that not only is cwa107 correct semantically but also correct in pointing out that malware is an issue worth discussing with users?
But using the term virus to describe any sort of catchall problem is like going to the grocery store and asking where the food is.
I'm not sure who you're arguing against here as cwa107 has made it very clear that he's talking about malware as a broad category of malicious software, some of which is very relevant to Mac users.
