The author suggests that security has to be enforced by the system itself, i.e. by the usage of an appropriate programming language, security tools (e.g. sand-boxing, ...) and other.
However, the author's comment fell short to honor the history of the kernel development, specify user applicability and discuss any improvements.
I partly agree with the author, but "default" settings are a very sensitive topic (why he doesn't provide any suggestions?) and hardly to answer for every application scope.
I don't think that Linux is more secure "than any other OS".
First, we have a wide variety of Linux desktops.
Second, when required, experienced (!) system administrators/business vendors invest a lot of time in order to get their system secure.
However, (unexperienced) "home users" are at disadvantage, because of lack of knowledge.
They would/will suffer from the perception of an superior security notion of Linux.
We have to get that right. That's it.
I don't think that Linux is more secure "than any other OS". First, we have a wide variety of Linux desktops. Second, when required, experienced (!) system administrators/business vendors invest a lot of time in order to get their system secure. However, (unexperienced) "home users" are at disadvantage, because of lack of knowledge. They would/will suffer from the perception of an superior security notion of Linux. We have to get that right. That's it.