>But the fact remains, almost every other platform is less hackable than linux.

Was that a typo? If not, do you have any sources to show this? I don't know or have an educated opinion either way, but that statement does contradict common perception.

Hacking, not cracking: http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/security/hacker-vs-cracker/...

By almost every other, I think he means all the commercial distributions of UNIX, which really are not very interesting to most hackers. I don't think he meant the BSDs.

He's using hacking to mean 'messing around with one's own system', not 'gaining unauthorized access to another person's system.'

In other words, he's saying that customizing/modding your own system and patching it (for yourself) is much more difficult than it is on Linux.

Solaris 11 is certified Unix and has ksh93, zsh, csh, and bash (I think others as well). Bash is also the default shell.

Yes it has motif for compatibility, but it also has Qt and Gtk. So I don't follow the implication that "certified Unix" means ancient platform.