I love The Rockford Files. It was the best detective show produced in the 1970s, and one of the few that stands up to contemporary viewing. The show offers a depth that is lacking in most other shows, new or old. Thanks to the goodness known as TiVo, I pick it up on WGN's nightly broadcast, and I just love it (tonight's episode was "Caledonia! It's Worth A Fortune!").

One of the things that I enjoy most about The Rockford Files is the way Jim Rockford, the title character, works people. In the context of the show, Jim is able to get people to tell him things by setting them up the way they want to be set up; he plays them like the good con artist he could have been. Part of the magic of the show is that between the writers, directors, and James Garner's acting, it's all believable.

Of course, real life doesn't often work that way. Most of us don't get many opportunities to say something to someone as if it the situation had been scripted.

Enter Lance Ulanoff.

Mr. Ulanoff is the senior executive producer for PCMag.com, and he has been kind enough to ask me, as a Mac user, how cocky I am feeling now that a big security hole has been found in Mac OS X. Well, Mr. Ulanoff, I am feeling pretty damned cocky.

Let me explain why. We're coming up on our fifth year of publication as TMO (plus two more as Webintosh), and long-time readers know that I am not fond of doing point-by-point rebuttals. There are times, however, when you just have to, and Mr. Ulanoff set me up so well that I am going to take that opportunity.

Mr. Ulanoff has published an editorial called "Eureka! Mac's Are Not Invulnerable." In that editorial, he says he is delighted that a vulnerability has been found in Mac OS X, that this proves that Mac OS X is just as insecure as Windows, that pompous Mac users will now be eating crow, that hardly anyone uses a Mac, and that "those on the Mac fringe have to face facts." Hard words, no doubt, but they do far more to reveal Mr. Ulanoff's angst and insecurities than they do to prove anything. From the article:

I know this is wrong, but in one respect I was happy to learn earlier this month about the discovery of a significant security hole in the Jaguar and Panther versions (10.2 and 10.3, respectively) of the Apple operating system. I was tired of the "We use Macs because they don't get attacked by viruses and hackers" refrain from Mac nuts. I generally counter with what is apparently a secret carefully hidden from Mac zealots: "That's because only a fraction of the world uses Macs. What's the point of attacking a niche market? No one will notice!" But the mindlessly superior retort is always the same, "No, it's because the Apple OS does not have the same holes as Windows. OS X is just a better operating system." Given this recent development, my question is, "Will you be stuffing that superior attitude in your crow or eating it separately, sir?"

Mr. Ulanoff should perhaps read TMO before he makes such embarrassing pronouncements, because the only data that we have ever seen on the issue of security-through-obscurity says that it is not an issue. I've discussed this many times, and those who say that Mac OS X suffers fewer security and virus problems than Windows only because there are fewer Mac users just don't have a leg to stand on.

So, Mr. Ulanoff asks us if we still feel superior after this exploit's announcement, and I have to tell you that yes, I am feeling pretty darned superior. Why?

BECAUSE IT'S ONE FREAKIN' EXPLOIT, CHOMPY!

As one of Mr. Ulanoff's own readers pointed out, there's the one exploit that he derives so much schadenfreude from, while there were five new exploits announced this week for IE 6 for Windows alone. That doesn't even count the other umpteen hundreds (or umpteen tens, to be more realistic) that already existed in Windows. You're damned tootin' I feel superior.

More from Mr. Ulanoff:

OS X 10.x may not be as widely used as Windows (let's face it, it isn't) but some of its devotees seem far more fanatical than Windows users. Those who toil in Windows -- me, for instance -- care about their OS to a certain degree, but hardly feel the need to jump to its defense or come up with ridiculous conspiracy theories to explain why, say, Bob bombed or Windows Me stank.

That's because Windows sucks, Lance. People don't defend Microsoft's history of incompetence (and here I will insert my standard props for the Mac Business Unit at Microsoft), because the company's Windows products suck. It's just that simple.

We defend Apple's boneheaded moves -- or rather, some of us do: I am still working on my "Apple: 10 Things I Hate About You" column, and anything I defend is for rationale reasons -- because we love our Macs. We love our Macs because they just work, and we get things done on them. You and your fellow lemmings don't care about your PCs because there is nothing about them to inspire loyalty to Microsoft, Dell, HP, Intel, of whomever. I ask you, whose problem is that?

From reading Mr. Ulanoff's column, I am guessing he secretly knows it is his problem. His writing reveals a lot of jealousy or envy about something. Perhaps it's the sense of community Mac users have, or perhaps it's something as simple as a natural desire to care about something in a world long gone to cynicism and pretense, and jealousy at those who have that something. Whatever it is, there is something that has him feeling defensive.

Moving on, Mr. Ulanoff then goes about getting his facts wrong:

Meanwhile, we can already see what happens when Apple has a broadly popular product that cuts across platforms. The Apple iPod is the number one MP3 player, and now that its companion computer utility, iTunes, is available for both the Mac and the PC, it has become a hack target. In fact, Jon Lech Johansen, the same Norwegian who cracked the DVD security code, recently circumvented the iTunes music protection scheme. An event like that occurring makes sense to me, since iTunes' popularity makes it a target worth hacking -- and whatever mystical Mac mojo there may be, it didn't go far in protecting a popular Apple product.

Uhhhh...That's because Jon Lech's circumvention works on Windows, not on the Mac, so there is no "Mac mojo" involved. Also, iTunes itself wasn't "hacked," and Apple's DRM wasn't "cracked." Yes, it is Apple software (QuickTime itself) that has the flaw that Mr. Lech is exploiting, but it's still an exploit on the Windows platform and not the Mac, and it's hardly an exploit. It's more like an exploit waiting for someone else to figure out how to make it useful (though that will no doubt happen at some point). Read our full coverage for more information.

More:

Ultimately, those on the Mac fringe have to face facts: Panther and Jaguar were not better at outrunning vulnerabilities than Windows. I expect other gaps will emerge, and while the Mac OS may still draw far fewer attacks, this discovery might suck a little wind (or is it Windows?) out of Mac radicals' sails. They can scarcely claim this was a minor hole. OS root access is serious stuff. How cocky are you feeling now, Mac elite? Hmm. Suddenly it's gotten pretty quiet around here.

Face facts? What facts? The fact that Windows has many, many, many, many times as many exploits as Mac OS X? The fact that there are still zero Mac OS X viruses? I'll face those facts all day long.

ALL DAY LONG!

It would seem that I still have a lot of wind in my "radical" sails.

Now, the hole Mr. Ulanoff talks about is a serious security hole, at least under certain circumstances, and unlike his assertions to the contrary, I don't know many Mac users who think that Mac OS X is invulnerable. The real difference, however, between Mac OS X and Windows is that Apple built Mac OS X from the ground up with security in mind. Microsoft, on the other hand, has been playing catch up for the last several years because security has always been an afterthought for Big Redmond. The company didn't even start taking security seriously until enormous pressure from consumers, the corporate market, and (most especially) the new (at that time) US Department of Homeland Security forced it to.

That, in a nutshell, is why there are fewer problems in Mac OS X than Windows. It's not because there are fewer Mac users; it's not because Mac OS X is invulnerable. It's because Apple is concerned about security, and works with the open source community, which is also concerned about security. It's because for all of Apple's faults and corporate weirdness, it is far more responsive to security issues than Microsoft has ever been.

That helps make my Mac safer and more secure than a Windows box, and the fact that it just works makes it all that much sweeter.

That's how cocky I am feeling, and I imagine that most of radical Mac buddies are still just as cocky.