I still say that it's as simple as, "put up or shut up."

Meantime, thanks for your concern about what I do with my hardware.

Probably flogging a dead horse, but I'm truly interested in non-childish, non-insulting discussion; education and insight.

By the doomsdayers:

emphasis mine

Why is that considered gospel,
and not:
?

Doesn't the condition of open source make my statement more likely?

Discuss.(and not disgust)

cheers,

I can't see your point ...

all the time some new vunerability is being discovered and at the same time the developers are commited to fix and patch this vunerabilities... imagine that there are less developers then users, so the growth of users are a geometric projection in correlation with the growth of developers, but still can't see the point.

The only thing I see right now is the lack of good arguments, and like you said this is became to agressive.

And just to enphasize, the fact of linux being opensource is great to find new vunerabilities and the same time to fix then different then waiting just for one company to do that...

still we are losing the focus here, the question is about Linux and Virus.
[ ]s

My point, as it relates to viruses is that there seems to be an assumption that as the use of Linux increases, the likelihood of a self-propagating, windows-like virus capable of infecting Linux systems increases.

Why is this, rather than the opposite, that the likelihood actually decreases, partly because the condition of open source helps to make it less likely, since any flaws in the system are more likely to be fixed?

What makes the latter "tunnel vision", yet the former "gospel"?

cheers,

I do not use anti virus software. Linux is not without security risks by any stretch of the imagination, but fortunately they are less commonly due to running bad "binary buckets."

Lack of understanding? Conditioning?

In any case, this is an excellent question.

yeah, I agree, and I think isn't the opensource who makes the system less vulnerable to virus, but the UNIX architecture of the system. Windows could be less virus vulnerable if its architecture was changed, but its like I said before, for MS the compatibility issue that it could cause to all working windows apps are not worthing the change... I don't know about Windows 7, but I think that in the end will still have compatibility with other windows versions so we go again to the same problem.

i totally agree with this ...

actually , what u said i just 1 thing from many reasons not to changing windows architecture ...

but lets see this from different point of view ,,, microsoft windows is very popular and has an excellent markets and wide usage .. of course linux and Mac OS X are popular i can say , but ... just think as a hacker/virus maker would think ... he needs an easy victim to spread or advertise for his upcoming worms/viruses/spyware/..etc ...
as i mentioned , he would use other windows users as victims its 'popular' ..!

thats -in my opinion- what attracts hackers/virus makers to be windows dependent ..

well, this helps too, but don't forget that Windows are full of o'matic programs that helps those people without any expertise to make "virus"... when it's about UNIX systems will require a lot more of knowledge to make something that could be called virus. A *nix virus will have to be made using some low level language, like C for example, that will have to exploit some very new or very unknown vulnerability, and lets face it, isn't half the work a guy needs to make a virus for windows...