Any judgment of “best” needs to specify “for what use case?”

I’m a MacOS daily driver, and I think it is the best for most of the use cases that matter to me.

But not all of them. And my use cases could easily change a little bit and make MacOS a miserable choice to stick with.

Everything is a trade-off.

To quote from a paper on the topic of OS security:

…uap.asia/…/periodicals-on-advancements-in-operat…

According to the paper [5], windows is the most user friendly and has more hardware compatibility. In terms of security, Linux is the most secure among all OS given that it is an open- source operating system which gives users the ability to customize and implement security patches. As for memory management, macOS is the better option due to its fully integrated virtual memory system which is often on and continuously provides addressable space up to 4 per process. The virtual memory system allocates extra space for swap files on the root file system as a program uses space.

All available OS offer some level of security features such as firewalls, antivirus software, and encryption [6]. macOS has a level of security due to its unique operating system designed specifically for Apple devices with no third-party developers involved. Linux, being open source, is often regarded as more secure than Windows, which is a target of many malware attacks [7].

Linux is the most secure among all OS given that it is an open- source operating system which gives users the ability to customize and implement security patches.

Imagine trusting folks to keep their stuff up-to-date, though. People get very hostile at the mere suggestion that they need to update when “everything works fine right now, why should I?”

When people say that (usually older folks that are used to something) they usually mean the UI. I wish there was a vendor that would keep their UI constant while patching just security and bugs.