Linux security

[Daniel Carrera]

Alan McKinnon wrote:
> The benefit with Linux is that it's 
> harder to deploy the malware in the first place and it's much harder 
> to get it to be executable (execute bit and umask).

Ok, I know the execute bit part. What makes it harder to deploy? Are we 
just relying on Firefox being secure?

> If you ever have this debate with an MS fundie, I suggest you side 
> step that problematic question by (validly) pointing out that the 
> other guy is setting up a straw man.

Where's the strawman? It seems like a valid question to me (the question 
is not "is Linux perfect?" but "is it less vulnerable?").

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