There are a couple of problems with this statement.... (reference to thread topic....)

1) A hacked box is not always easy to spot, particualry if the attacker was highly skilled and paranoid
about being discovered. Most attackers want to elevate/maintain access to the system, so they will
go to great lengths to make the system appear as if all is well. Unless they asked this question of expert security administrators the replies are suspect.

2) There might be more Windows™ boxes on the planet, but hacking has always been a predominately
UNIX-oriented activity. Simply put, it is far more useful to have 100 boxes running some Unix-variant under
your control than 100 Windows boxes. Most security/cracking tools and exploits are meant to be run from
some Unix-variant regardless of the end target; which, irrespective of OS preference makes r00ting Unix boxes
much more worthwhile.

3) Popular computer activities are inherently insecure. It really doesn't matter what OS you choose to run, or how tightly you lock down your network if you are going to bring in untrusted (i.e. mp3's, images, moveis, games, etc., etc.,) files onto your system.

4) Consider that many exploits are kept secret within close-knit black hat circles never making it to bugtrack and other popular places to annouce new security issues.

Linux is an outstanding OS, and I have full confidence that it will continue to get even better. To make claims that
suggest it is secure even in the hands of a novice or casual user is just untruthful and unrealistic at this point.

-- spurious