If Linux and Windows popularity flip flopped...

[AaronMiller]

Do you think that if Windows became as used as Linux is now and Linux became as used as Windows is now, there would be an influx of Linux viruses, spyware, malware, and general exploits as there are for Windows now? Would Windows supporters be sitting back boasting about how "secure" their OS is and how poorly secure and safe Linux is?

I'm just curious. I've always been under the impression that the reason Linux is so safe from viruses, spyware, etc is because the people who make these programs want to infect your computer, and if 90% of the market is running Windows, why bother making a Linux Spyware/Virus if the chances of it infecting someone is so slim?

Anyways, what do you think?

[Het Irv]

Saddly I think that you are right but I also think that Linux would fare much better under that kind of pressure. Being open source means that everyone has a chance to patch the system not just a bunch of people in Washington State.

[LaRoza]

No, assuming Linux worked the same way it does now, and wasn't dumbed down, security would be the same.

Linux is fixed and developed much faster, it takes MS months to react to know problems, the animated cursor incident, remember?

Linux has more people working on it.

Linux doesn't execute everything that it downloads, you have to mark it as such then run it, and damage can only be done if you run it as root.

[Iceni]

A new report finds that, for the first time, virus infections have slipped to the second spot on the list of computer security troublemakers. In first place— a company's own workers."
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/17/1543208

Users are more of a problem than malware. No surprise.

[argie]

Do you think that if Windows became as used as Linux is now and Linux became as used as Windows is now, there would be an influx of Linux viruses, spyware, malware, and general exploits as there are for Windows now? Would Windows supporters be sitting back boasting about how "secure" their OS is and how poorly secure and safe Linux is?

I'm just curious. I've always been under the impression that the reason Linux is so safe from viruses, spyware, etc is because the people who make these programs want to infect your computer, and if 90% of the market is running Windows, why bother making a Linux Spyware/Virus if the chances of it infecting someone is so slim?

Anyways, what do you think?

The way my home PCs are set up, each member of my family has a separate account, not one of those accounts is an administrator. A virus would only kill one person's home folder, and then it's a lesson learnt. It was much easier to set this up in Ubuntu (couple of clicks, and the default type of user is not Administrator) but in Windows, when you make a new user they can install stuff too (atleast that's what happened for me, I didn't know enough at the time, but in Ubuntu, I didn't need to, it was obvious and the default was sane). So, no.

[Depressed Man]

Do you think that if Windows became as used as Linux is now and Linux became as used as Windows is now, there would be an influx of Linux viruses, spyware, malware, and general exploits as there are for Windows now? Would Windows supporters be sitting back boasting about how "secure" their OS is and how poorly secure and safe Linux is?

I'm just curious. I've always been under the impression that the reason Linux is so safe from viruses, spyware, etc is because the people who make these programs want to infect your computer, and if 90% of the market is running Windows, why bother making a Linux Spyware/Virus if the chances of it infecting someone is so slim?

Anyways, what do you think?

Short answer: No, Yes.
Short answer with slight explanation (because someone will likely expand upon this). It has to do with the way Linux is done with security permissions, as well as the rate things are patched. Because everyone can see the source code while you could use an exploit to your advantage, it's also as likely that the exploit will be fixed just as fast. Of course this does depend on the user updating their OS. But there could always be an autoupdate function like Window has that a user could turn on.

Windows supporters could brag about how their OS is safe and secure because like Linux is now, it would have a small userbase. But I doubt you'd ever see the same penetration of viruses and what not in Linux that Windows has. Will there be viruses, trojans and what not? Yes. But I doubt there will be as many as Windows currently has.

[Acglaphotis]

OMG STOP IT WITH THAT! Linux isn't secure because it has a small userbase.

It's secure because it unix-like (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix), because viruses are harder to write for linux, harder to spread (http://www.gnu.org/fun/jokes/evilmalware.html), the security flaws are fixed more often than window, the average linux user is aware of the need of security so they wont go around installed debs without knowing it's origin etc, repos are perfectly safe unless you install a shady one from someone you dont know etc.

The fact that the linux user-base is small is just a small part of the answer. If it was *just* because of that linux servers woulnt have succes. Linux has an approximate of 22% marked share in server (http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:XoPx_k5iiWcJ:enterpriselinuxlog.blo gs.techtarget.com/2007/08/28/the-server-market-share-battle-microsoft-gains-2/+linux+market+share+in+servers+2007&hl=es&client=firefox-a&gl=ve&strip=1).

[/rant]

[Dragonbite]

If Linux and Microsoft swapped, I think

Linux would have to be made more accessible to the masses, and thus open holes that would otherwise be (smartly) closed for "convenience"
Linux would still be fairly secure and exploits would have a devil of a time getting permissions to do too much (which is looks like is happening overall)
Instead of the OS being exploited, the number of "3rd party" applications being exploited (Firefox, .jpeg, streaming media intersception, etc.) will be the primary focus, not the OS
There would be 3 or less "core" Linux distros so that users are not overly confused, and peope will be constantly trying to pit one against the other
Windows users would think they are being more secure, even though they will be just as vulnerable to the exploits because they too use Firefox, .jpeg and streaming media.
Windows users would bitch-and-moan about how it's a "real computer" where you have to apply patches, and reboot every so often . . . like "real men" do :lolflag:
Apple would try to exert it's control by not making iTunes not work with Windows and new iPods can only work with iTunes, thus shutting Windows out of using their media player (attempting a monoploy, are we?)

[nonewmsgs]

If Linux and Microsoft swapped, I think

Linux would have to be made more accessible to the masses, and thus open holes that would otherwise be (smartly) closed for "convenience"
Linux would still be fairly secure and exploits would have a devil of a time getting permissions to do too much (which is looks like is happening overall)
Instead of the OS being exploited, the number of "3rd party" applications being exploited (Firefox, .jpeg, streaming media intersception, etc.) will be the primary focus, not the OS
There would be 3 or less "core" Linux distros so that users are not overly confused, and peope will be constantly trying to pit one against the other
Windows users would think they are being more secure, even though they will be just as vulnerable to the exploits because they too use Firefox, .jpeg and streaming media.
Windows users would bitch-and-moan about how it's a "real computer" where you have to apply patches, and reboot every so often . . . like "real men" do :lolflag:
Apple would try to exert it's control by not making iTunes not work with Windows and new iPods can only work with iTunes, thus shutting Windows out of using their media player (attempting a monoploy, are we?)


well said. i was going to say something similar, but the itunes thing hadn't occurred to me. good catch.