Username or EmailPassword
Whatever the case, the reality remains the same. Windows has always been, and still is, the low hanging fruit--ever since it took over DOS' market share. And it has traditionally been poorly designed, just like its pathetic predecessor. Coincidence? Not saying that Linux or any other OS for that matter is perfect, but if I were to be browsing porn, you could be damn well sure I'd be doing it on any mainstream OS *besides* Windows.
It's like wearing a rubber... the viruses may possibly be there, but you're less likely to "send" or "receive" them and become infected. Windows at one point offered the protection of nothing at all, but now I'd say it offers the protection of a cheap, generic type of condom. Meanwhile, Linux and BSD have proven themselves over and over, while Windows' nuts and bolts (heh heh) were finally tightened to a more acceptable level with Vista. Edited 2010-06-23 03:45 UTC
differences you are not accounting for:
- Linux needs a lot less external, untrusted, binary-only software.
- AppArmor and SeLinux are ready. Should desktop security become a problem we would see a hell of an isolation layer.
- Differences in kernels, compilers, libraries, etc, would make it much harder for malware to spread.
- Linux users are much more skilled
Yes, if linux had 80% of the user base, there would be more security problems. Probably a tenth of what Windows has right now.
On the other hand, Linux has source code backwards compatibility going a lot further than windows... Applications written for early unix systems can often compile and run successfully on a modern linux box.
Most linux malware is in the form of backdoored services that are intended to be manually installed and used by a hacker, whereas windows malware is typically automated because few hackers would manually target windows machines - their only value is in large hordes for ddos/spam purposes.