In infinite wisdom Martin answered:

Reason wrote:

If Linux had viruses, we would ever know, because Linux-heads would refuse to acknowledge their existence.

[...]

A big point about Linux and open-source is that problems and exploits are widely published and quickly fixed VERY QUICKLY.

Perhaps, but this does not mean that most users know about, or update
their systems. Even unix sys admins don't do a reliable job, as the
last worm demonstrated.

There's many eyes to scrutinize for problems and there's no big marketing department to get in the way of _real_ progress.

And no central planning or control, which makes what gets done
somewhat hit or miss.

You also have a security model that has survived 30+ years of very thorough testing!

I believe that by default, most linux's come with the ftpd running,
etc..., and as a result they are mostly open to attack, especially for
uninformed users. Unix was designed more for an open environment than
security, although of course it's still much better than Windows.

But I've seen many security problems on unix systems over the years,
usually of the buffer overflow variety that allows a root shell to
be obtained. Unix is no more secure than it's system admin. Now for
home systems this is rarely a big problem. But how many companies have
had credit card numbers stolen by a hacker, from unix based systems?
How many govt agencies have had sensitive information stolen, from
unix systems, by hackers? Check out "The Cuckoo's Egg".

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0743411463/102-9899101-0828923?v=glance

I'd strongly suggest that you don't just assume that linux is safe.
Hackers could discover a bug tomorrow and everything could change.
I'd still bet that Linux is better than windows, but I also bet that
few Linux owners keep their systems up to date or apply security patches.

Rich

Take your ignorant uninformed troll bait elsewhere.

Martin