Linux security

[Daniel Carrera]

Gary W. Swearingen wrote:
>>I don't want to concede Microsoft's argument that Linux only has
>>fewer viruses because it's less popular.
> 
> I've heard people argue that as if it didn't matter that there were
> fewer Linux virus writers.

Sigh... The objective is to figure out if Linux actually is less 
vulnerable to viruses than Windows. In other words, if all other things 
were equal (market share, number of virus writers, etc), would Linux 
have fewer problems? Is the system less hospitable to viruses?

> It might not matter if you're making an
> academic comparison of OS designs, but it matters hugely in practice.

The question of whether Linux is less vulnerable by nature is also 
hugely important in practice. And that's the one I want to answer.

Cheers,
Daniel.
-- 
      /\/`) http://opendocumentfellowship.org
     /\/_/
    /\/_/   ...and starting today, all passwords must contain
    \/_/    letters, numbers, doodles, sign language and
    /       squirrel noises.