Interesting argument...

[Kamikaze Badger]

Being chatting in an IRC room, and we got to the point of discussing virii. According to the people in the IRC room(which are very competent when it comes to computers, btw), the only reason there aren't as many virii for Linux as there are for Windows is because people don't use it as much.



My reply to this was that Linux dosn't have as many serious security holes in it as M$ does.





What do you think? Is the reason that there aren't as many virii for Linux as there are for Windows is because not as many people use it?

[TheSpecialist]

Being chatting in an IRC room, and we got to the point of discussing virii. According to the people in the IRC room(which are very competent when it comes to computers, btw), the only reason there aren't as many virii for Linux as there are for Windows is because people don't use it as much.

My reply to this was that Linux dosn't have as many serious security holes in it as M$ does.

I don't think you know much of anything at all about either styles of OS to even bother to talk about it.

What do you think? Is the reason that there aren't as many virii for Linux as there are for Windows is because not as many people use it?

First off don't get things confused, im sure what they meant was compaired to a windows OS there is a very large lack in the rate of idiotic home users. The number of home users is still smaller but to say that "not many people have it around blah blah" is pure bullshit though. If that where true then what about the billions of servers running off an *.nix OS? Pull your head out of your ass for a moment

[el-half]

It is only because not as many people use Linux, and also a Linux computers is less likely to be infected by a worm for example because its average user base actually knows how to maintain and secure his computer.

[The Duck]

This has been discussed literally hundreds of times here at AO. I suggest you search the site before you post something like this. You don't want to start another 10 page thread full of flames and such...

[TheSpecialist]

Originally posted here by el-half
It is only because not as many people use Linux, and also a Linux computers is less likely to be infected by a worm for example because its average user base actually knows how to maintain and secure his computer.

I disagree slightly. This whole thing, agian, playing by majority rules here pal. Your not likely to get hit by a mass mailer, sure... but if I can install critical updates MONTHS before both MSblaster and Sasser was even around on this XP within a few rooms from me then clearly if this where the case then surely no *.nix users at all would be infected with Ramen, lion, and Adore... if some of these people knew what to do incase they run into a little trouble then clearly they wouldn't have waited all that time only to let Cheese become a bonus blow to these systems straight up the "back-door".

[MrLinus]

The reason for Linux not getting as many viruses as Windows has nothing to do with users or security. Linux is rather popular thanks to Suse and RH making it "feel" more like Windows. And with the general user still doing the same habit -- that is, not doing anything -- the security is as good as the default install, which is bupkis.

There are a variety of things happening within linux that make it difficult to survive. One is the fact that users -- generally -- would be run as a user and not as root. Thus the ability for the virus to "infect" the system is harder. Within Windows, because many apps end up being tied within the OS (e.g., IE) it's almost like you are an administrator and can access the core of the OS (i.e., the Registry). It makes the Windows environment a better breeding ground. Now that said, because some users do log on as root regularly they are creating a better breeding ground but it's still a difficult one.

Second to this is the fact that Linux does come from an Open Source background. Because of the variety of apps and the number of eyeballs (that is, looking at code), it's harder for viruses to hide. It's also more difficult to create a virus that will necessarily work because the assumption is that all the machines work in the same manner. In a Windows environment various components are always found in the same areas (e.g., Program Files, Windows, Windows/System32, etc). While it annoys me to no end sometimes, each distro has somwhat their own way to do layouts. And users can install a variety of applications, all dealing with the same "protocol" (you can have a dozen different word processors if you want).

That said, there have been Linux viruses. Bliss is considered the first wild Linux virus while Staog is considered the first Linux virus.

Lastly, this isn't a question of Linux being better than Windows. Linux can get hit hard by worms and has in the past. These days, I don't consider a virus as serious a threat as it used to be, largely because of the propogation nature of it (it tends to rely on humans to propogate it compared to worms which do so on their own). With the popularity of Open Office, however, we might see some viral activity through that app.

[slarty]

I am pretty much in agreement - the number of Linux viruses is controlled by:

- Fewer Linux boxes
- Much less homogeny between Linux boxes - different distros, Linux users use different mail apps, different server apps etc. Makes writing worms harder, and makes then have fewer targets (even amongst the Linux boxes)
- Linux users generally use safer computing practice - i.e. do not generally send binaries by email or download them from untrusted sources

I disagree with MsMittens about root access.

Not having root access will do absolutely nothing to mitigate a worm's spreading power, or its damage.

If a malware has access to my user account, it can wipe or corrupt all *my* files (not system ones). But they're the only ones I care about anyway.

Slarty

[RoadClosed]

Virus writers hate microsoft. Could be that simple?