Linked by David Adams on Mon 6th Oct 2003 19:34 UTC
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/25/13 0:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 23:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Howard Fosdick on 05/24/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Seems most posters are not even acknowledging the truth of the article. That even if Linux and Mac OS X were targeted as much as Windows, viruses would have less success spreading among the machines. I think the article did a good job of explaining why that would be true.
No, it didn't. Apart from the parts where it was agreeing that Windows' popularity is one of the main reasons it is so vulnerable (see "monoculture" comments), it was mainly listing ways in which Linux was less capable and hand-waving about how "not being root" would stop worms spreading and dramatically limit local system damage, which is just plain false.