I've made my case that Linux is virus resistant. I don't think presuing the subject any ferther in this direction has any meaning.
I wanted to present a diffrent thought on the matter.
Let us say there was a Linux virus and as predicted it became a pleage.
Antivirus software? Firewalls?
Every example of how Linux could get a virus includes one key element. A software bug.
Software bugs are a greater threat than just viruses. Windows is a great example of this. Flawed drivers can criple a system in horrific ways. A flaw in the kernel can crash the system at a critical time.
For that reason GNU/Linux takes software defects very sereously.
It is the antivirus software companys that insist Linux isn't virus resistant. That Linux must take viruses sereously. What they really mean is that Linux users should buy anti-virus software.
How effective would this software be on Linux when there are better alterntives.
There is right now a number of Linux worms and trojens. Where is the anti virus software?
Not nessisary. Fix the security flaws and you'll be fine.
As for firewalls. Yes please but not for the viruses or even the worms.
Hardware firewalls to block hackers. Software firewalls are worthless.
Worms use defects in the protocals you use. You'll open ports in the firewall to permit lagit access and the worms will slide right through them.