The difference between Windows and Linux is how easy it is to remove stuff like this on Linux.
It was a deb. Which means the installation script, on the vast majority of users systems, is going to run as root. Which means the ease of removal can, depending on how clever the malware author is, be anything up to and including "practically impossible unless you have a lot of experience removing clever rootkits from a livecd".
On Linux, she could have simply killed any offending processes (O.K. that's nontrivial, but no root permissions needed in theory) and check the (graphical, so-easy-to-use-a-caveman^H^Hgrandma-could-do-it) Gnome startup programs tool for suspicious entries
The malware in TFA on gnome-look was packaged as a deb file, and so (on the vast majority of systems) would need elevated privileges to install, and so have its installation script run as root.
Which means it's not just gnome startup programs you'd have to check, its every complicated, optimised-for-fast-startup-to-the-point-of-obfuscation (remember, Grandma's going to be running Ubuntu, not Slackware) startup script on the system. And you'd have to know it when you see it, which is not necessarily trivial if the malware author was clever. Maybe you could manage it; I certainly couldn't, I'd be installing from scratch.
When software asks the user if he or she accepts the license agreement, software is, on the behalf of the owner and as a proxy, attempting to enter into a legal contract (EULA).
Oh, bah. If I hand you a contract which I've pre-signed, is the contract itself, "on the behalf of the owner and as a proxy", attempting to enter into the contract with you? No, of course not; I am, I'm merely pre-agreed with it. Analogously with software EULAs (up to maybe not strictly being a contract etc.).
Aptitude manages package selections far better including remembering that you installed library x simply to make package y happy.
...As does apt-get, since quite a few versions ago. Alias "apt-get remove" to "apt-get autoremove" to get it to automatically uninstall x when y gets removed.
The Linux Format article says it can import docx, pptx etc., which means they are Microsoft Office 2007 XML files, and not OOXML, the Published Standard.
Office 2007 OOXML files *are* a published standard -- the published standard in question being ECMA 376.
If what you actually meant was "...not OOXML, the Published ISO Standard", then say what you mean. But your original comment could be understood as saying that the spec Office 2007 uses is unpublished, wihch is obviously wrong.
(Not to mention that even saying that is ambiguous -- does "The ISO standard" refer to ISO 29500/Transitional or ISO 29500/Strict? The former is practically identical to ECMA 376, with the exception of minor tag semantic cleanup; whereas the latter is significantly different).
Link to Original Source
The Government remains committed to its policy that no patents should exist for inventions which make advances lying solely in the field of software. Although certain jurisdictions, such as the US, allow more liberal patenting of software-based inventions, these patents cannot be enforced in the UK. The test used to discern between patentable and non-patentable subject matter in the UK has recently been clarified by the courts, and is applied rigorously by the Patent Office. Under this test, the true nature of the advance being claimed in a patent application must be determined, and if this advance lies solely in the field of software, or another non-technical field such as methods of doing business, the patent will not be granted. If the advance being made by an invention does lie in a technical field, it must also be non-obvious and sufficiently clearly described for the invention to be reproduced before a patent will be granted by the Patent Office. The recently published Gowers Review of Intellectual Property, an independent review commissioned by the Government, recommended that patent rights should not be extended to cover pure software, business methods and genes. The Government will implement those recommendations for which it is responsible, and will therefore continue to exclude patents from areas where they may hinder innovation: including patents which are too broad, speculative, or obvious, or where the advance they make lies in an excluded area such as software."
From the Arstechnica article:
Amero was substituting for a middle-school English class and asked the regular teacher permission to use the computer to e-mail her husband. The teacher granted her permission, and asked her not to log him out of the computer. Amero, the self-professed techno-noob, then left the room to use the restroom, and upon her return says that she found several students gathered around the machine looking at a web site. A series of unfortunate events occurred from this point on, resulting in a slew of pornographic pop-ups appearing on the screen. The onslaught continued despite Amero's attempts to close the windows.
According to The Register
When the students told their parents what had happened, they told the administration, who vowed that Julie would never work in the classroom again. But they went further. The 40-year-old substitute teacher was arrested, indicted, tried and here is the kicker on January 5, 2007, she was convicted of four counts of risk of injury to a minor, or impairing the morals of a child (Conn. Gen. Stat. 53-21). Indeed, she was originally charged with exposing 10 children in the seventh grade class to the materials on the internet, but six of the charges were dropped.
I guess "Ambush Porn" really is dangerous."