Linked by David Adams on Tue 22nd Jun 2010 16:14 UTC, submitted by sjvn
Permalink for comment 431157
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 17:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-12-05
You see, it's a lot easier to attack someone who is actively running your malware on a machine with no anti-virus or spyware protection, without any prodding on your part.
And even if they were...? Linux still has far fewer pieces of malware written for it than Windows ever did. Windows even had a nice little boost in the early days thanks to its compatibility with another horrible OS, MS-DOS.
Linux has no "binary backwards compatibility" or "legacy poor-security garbage design" to stick to. At least, not nearly to the extent Microsoft products do. And it has no real, market-driven (commercial) reason to.
Edited 2010-06-23 03:17 UTC