Would so many viruses exist if Linux was the dominant O/S?

[Born_a_Democrat]

Poll question: Would so many viruses exist if Linux was the dominant O/S?

I mean you have to think about the fact that Linus is much more open than Windows so would hackers be able to create viruses for Linux as easily as they do for Windows?

[thebigidea]

1. no, because computers would mostly be restricted to hobbyists and academia

which on the one hand sounds kinda nice, like a return to the early days of USENET.

[no name no slogan]

11. No way, MacOS X is UNIX!

Have you ever used MacOS X? It's based on FreeBSD, which is based on BSD, which was one of the first Unix clones created at UCal-Berkeley.

In other words, it's "Unix" to its core. And it's user-friendly, quick, powerful, and dare I say, beautiful?

The only reason it's not UNIX® is because it doesn't contain any of the old AT&T code, which was purged from BSD in the 80s after the AT&T breakup.

[Caution]

2. the very first internet worm

use unix email and exploited poor security to propagate itself. Linux or any other unix variant is only as secure as the operator behind the system makes it.

[alfredo]

6. surfing as a user, not root will solve a lot of issues.

How many Windows users surf as root?

[LTR]

3. Linux is open source

I could see a lot of holes being exploited.

Hell, if Apple was the most dominant OS, there would be plenty of viruses targeting it.

I'm not defending Windows. There are a lot of flaws. For example, the Messenger Service one is a total fiasco, where windows pop up like crazy for no apparent reason. AOL is even shutting this one down for their customers.

[alfredo]

7. but they get patched quickly. Open source means a lot of

eyes scanning the software. Bad code is found and corrected quickly. the community will not allow a hole to last very long.


Also, the culture of Nix's is very different from the aggressive corporate culture you see at Redmond. MS has all sorts of enemies, from destroyed competitors to disgruntled employees. What goes around, comes around.

[LoneStarLiberal]

4. Linux is More Stable; Windows Just Sucks.

Linux is simply a better platform.

Microsoft code monkeys suck and then their parent company doesn't have any reason to repair their mistakes in a timely manner since everyone is in their thrall.

Look no further than patching for an example. Want to patch your Windows box? Well download all of them and then REBOOT! How inefficient.

Want to patch your Linux box? The only time you will need to interrupt your work or your production box is if the patch involves a kernel upgrade.

Windows sucks. Always has. Always will.

Caution posting above is right in all cases, however: Any system is only as good as the administrator/operator responsible for it.

[Noordam]

5. Well all how many Apple viruses are there

:)

[hexola]

8. Linux has too many variations...

...to be easily targeted by viruses...yes, they are all "Linux" but each company has their own way of building the system...

Mancrake
Gentoo
Knoppix
Red Hat
Debian
Suse
Slackware
Lycoris
Xandros
Lindows

All Linux Distrobutions...that variety is why it's less vulnerable...

Windows systems are largely ALL THE SAME - thats why most virus target Windows...

[denverbill]

13. Hehe. Are you kidding?

Microsoft as Windows 3.1, 95, 98, Me, XP, 2000, NT. Each of these versions exists on different computers in different patching states. The only reason MS gets hacked so much is because each of these versions in on millions of boxes, compared to a few million total for Linux versions. If Linux was on 95% of the world's computers, hackers would spend 100% of their time hacking Linux and we'd have just as many viruses.

[no name no slogan]

9. Networking is more integrated in *nix systems

Since the 1980s, when TCP/IP was added to BSD Unix (by Bill Joy of Sun Microsystems fame), the various flavors of Unix (Linux included) have had networking much more closely tied to the operating system-- and much more isolated and secure as well.

Windows, as an OS, was never meant to be networked. Yes, switching to the NT kernel helped quite a bit with that, but your average user still doesn't know enough about his/her system to realize that logging into the machine as "Administrator" still poses a fairly big threat to their machine's integrity.

However, if any of the *nix OSs were to get as big as Windows, there's no doubt we'd see more virii and such. However, the open-source OSs (like Linux, the *BSDs, etc) will have a much easier time combatting these attacks, as a fix can be made and distributed quickly.

[not systems]

10. Open software is more secure.

If everyone has the source then it must be secure by design.

If no one has the code it may be secure by control of information.

Time and time again windows has been found insecure even
with no public visability of the source.

No virus has every existed in the wild for linux.

There have been worms for certain programs but never a virus.

The code is visable for all yet never has a virus existed
in the wild because it is sercure by design not by fiat.

That said give enough monkeys typewriters and one might
write a decent poem.

Make a system idiot proof and they will invent a better idiot.

Millions of people use Linux still no viruses it is more secure period.

[no name no slogan]

12. "security by obscurity" does work very well (n/t)