OMG this is so funny you guys really do not know how to read do you LOL. You keep going on about Linux servers, that is not what this was about to begin with. It was about Linux for the desktop. Additionally, as I mentioned Server attacks are not successful for the most part and are not gone after becuase most are properly maintained as is not the case with most desktops. I have been running a Windows Vista 64x machine on the same install for two years with no malware and no virus and it runs just as fast as the day I built it. Why? you ask? Ok I'll tell you, because I know how to patch it and keep my AV and Spyware up to date. However; this is not the case for most Windows users outside of the corporate world. They do not patch regularly and most do not have AV software or Spyware software, thus they will become infected. I have also found that a large number of home users rarely have a firewall in place. As I said if the tables were turned and Linux held the same market share FOR THE DESKTOP there is no doubt that it would be in the same boat that Windows is with regards to viruses and malware.

LOL, there is emperical evidence, it is called free market. If you have market share then people will create for that market share no matter if that creation is good or bad. Again, if Linux had 90% market share we would be here talking crap about Linux and not Windows. Now that said,I do agree that MS could do a better job at filling in the holes in their software to make it harder for this type of thing to happen, but simply do to the vast number of Windows machines out there, more people will be trying to poke holes in it because that is where the fame is at. BTW this is sent from a Linux desktop.

LOL you lost your job because you are ill informed, this is proof in the fact that you attacked me personally and could not provide an informed rebutal to my facts. I am not vomiting up patently incorrect facts and deliberate misdirection at all just providing correct facts about something that seems to be a bit skewed here since most people on this site are 100% pro-Unix, which is not a bad thing but more often then not does not allow for any other points of view, Unix is right Windows is wrong get over it. My point is that Linix will NEVER become a driving force for the desktop until it receives the backing of mainstream software vendors who write programs for it. If you walk into any software store you find 90% Windows based programs 9% Mac and if your lucky 1% Unix or Linux. The fact that hackers, crackers and virus writers attack Windows is simply due to Windows having the largest market share. If you look to the automotive industry aftermarket parts are not made for rare cars but they are made for the most popular. Why because they will be purchased and that is where the market for the parts are. Same goes here why write a virus that will infect 1% of the desktop market or even 10% of the desktop market. If you want to get noticed you write it for the 90% of the market i.e. Windows. Recently, there was a competition for exploiting browsers and the first to fall was Safari for Mac, the next was Firefox, then IE8. Does this mean that Mac is easier to exploit then Windows?

If you look at the computers that are infected, traditionally they are home desktops, which are normally not patched regularly, do not have AV software and do not have spyware software. Additionally there are many more home desktops then there are webservers. As for servers, 99% would be locked down by default to only have a minimal number of ports open and minimal services leaving them pretty secure against such attacks. There are the rare instances that these machines are infected, or comprimised by a hacker in some form but this is not the norm. My post was about desktops if you read it not servers. Servers are normally operated by people who know how to lock them down and know something about security. Desktops on the other hand are not normally secured in the same manner given that the largest number of them are in the home.

Actually, if you were to look at this objectively you would see what I am saying instead of wanting to attack me. I said Windows itself is NOT malware ridden is correct. The fact that it holds 90% of the desktop market means that malware writers are going to write malware for it. If Linux or Mac had that kind of market share and not Windows we would be saying the same thing about them. Those that would write malware or viruses for an OS will only do it if they are going to get noticed or get what they want on a wide scale and attacking the platform that is used on 90% of the desktop computers (which are the most insecure due to the large percentage of them being in the home and virtually unprotected). There is no need for them to attack Linux or Mac simply because there will be very little press if a small number of computers are infected; however if you infect hundreds of thousands then you gain notoriety and have a larger opportunity to pilfer personal information that can be used for profit.

As I said the issue is software support by the mainstream companies. Just as in almost every industry if there is not support for a product it will not gain wide spread approval, good or not. If one looks back to the VHS vs. Beta agruements in the 80s Betamax was a much better format but because Sony would not license it to everyone as was done with VHS it failed to gain mass appeal. Looking at Blueray and HDDVD, Sony would not make the same mistake twice and this time they came out on top. Good or not it falls on marketing and backing of the mainstream and until Linux gains that support, it will never gain widespred adaptation.

The comment "The fact that Windows is an unmaintainable, malware riddled, shambles with severe usability and performance problems" is someone ill informed. The fact that those that write malware for Windows only do so because Windows has 90% of the desktop market. If Linux had a larger percentage of the desktop market you would see similar attacks formed against it. The Unmaintainable statement is also a falacy since MS has the best rating for patching issues of any OS on the market. Lastly, as for usability, and performance, usability would be in the eye of the beholder. If what you are doing with it is something that requires Unix well then the usbility would be in question but if you are using it for something it is designed for they it works fine. I mean you wouldn't use a sports car to pull a travel trailer, if so then the usability of the sports car in that instance would be horrible and for performance yes Linux runs very good on hardware that would not even load Windows Vista, but if you want to run virtually any software that is sold today you need Windows and the lack of support for Linux by the mainstream software companies is one reason that Linux will never become a driving force on the desktop. Now before you flame me you must understand that I am neither for or against any OS they all have their place but honestly people use what they like and just because you dont like it doesnt mean we all have too or we all think that one or the other is horrible. Thank God we have a choice.

Do computer geeks actually have sex?

Terminator...hmm me thinks this is a bad idea.