No, the same on my Vista installation.
But asking me is not fair, I think that I am more educated regarding security as the average user. Ask the same question the uneducated Ubuntu/Mint/whatever user that mindlessly adds PPAs to the system, installs DEBs from obscure sources, puts sudo in front of every command and tries to run the system as root (or setup password-less sudo) to get rid of those annoying questions about passwords. The same thing uneducated Windows users do it with installing software from obscure sources or disabling the UAC.

Disclaimer: I am not intending to start a flame war here. There are educated and uneducated users on any OS, especially when it comes to security. Naturally the percentage of uneducated users is higher on mainstream OSes, but the OSes with smaller communities don't lack uneducated users also.

No flamewar TobiSGD. Just a productive conversation. :D

I would say that GNU/Linux gets hacked when it's a public server that catches crackers' eyes. It has to have something interesting to be targeted. When it's targeted - it (a server) CAN be hacked no matter what software it runs. Remember Comodo being hacked? Noone is invulnerable.

However, as frieza mentioned - Linux is way better secured out of the box. Apply some knowledge here and you get pretty secured system which can also be easily updated. Updates overwrite working kernel (in case of rootkit). Software is installed from repos (most of the times) which contain only approved packages. It reduces chance of installing infected program drasticly (again - I never say 100%). Add package signing here. In Windows you download exe/msi installer, run it and hope for the best. Not only because it can contain malware but also because it can bring your system down after the installation is complete.

It gets even more interesting if you dig in it, go under the hood. Windows restricts you more and more from version to version to the point where you're not allowed to know anything. Just click with your mouse. In UNIX/Linux you can study anything and tweak it on extreme level. You can create wild configurations. This gives you perspectives in building you security. Can Windows give you this?

indeed, any system can be hacked, given enough time, the operative word of security is to simply make the system resistant to attack enough for a random attacker to give up and move on, nothing, but nothing can stop a directed attack with enough determination, especially on a physical front, thus a good disaster recovery plan is essential when dealing with critical systems.

indeed, repos are often more secure, but they can be poisoned, not easily mind you but they have been in the past.
another problem with exe/msi installations is some of them come with their own versions of libraries they require to run, which could overwrite existing versions, and thus break already installed software, whereas linux doesn't do this, it packages everything separately for the most part.

ironically, some of said restrictions make securing the system even harder, instead of easier

but as i have said before, security is the responsibility of the user, not the operating system

The people that attack linux systems are a very different type than those that attack windows.

To think that any system is secure is foolish.

that depends on your definition of 'secure', you can leave a house unlocked with all the windows open and put a sign on the door that says 'rob me', or you can lock the doors and windows, add a burglar alarm with motion sensors, glass break detectors and magnetic sensors in the doors, lock all your valuables in a safe and you will be 'secure' since you will be able to deter the casual thief/burglar, but if someone wants to get at your valuables, there is no stopping them, this does not mean that there isn't a degree of security, the whole point of 'secure' is protection from all but the most determined of attackers, and even then you can take steps to mitigate what damage they can do.

as i have said, security is up to the user, not the operating system, I will amend that statement to say that security is an ongoing process, which must be monitored, updated, and revised, not a static entity that can be set and forgotten, not only that but it is a multi layered approach that encompasses several fields, from network, to software, to OS to physical access to machines, as well as the people who use them (the most important part), therefore yes it is foolish to say i've installed linux, done x,y and z, yep, i'm secure is an incredibly foolish thing, but to toss up your hands and say that you can't be 'secure' is also foolish.

As a rule, no.

I strongly suspect that this notion originated back when the main competition was still Win9x, Outlook Express, and Internet Explorer with ActiveX.

i would have to disagree to a point, true modern windows has gotten significantly more secure than it's predecessors, however windows still has a good deal more 'automation' to it for the purpose of making the user experience more transparent than linux does, this automation does make operating the system more simple for the end user, but comes at the price of security, though i would have to say that the gap in security betwen out of box systems is far, far less significant than it used to be, imho linux is still in front.