As a long-term UNIX and Linux user and developer (been working on it since it's creation when it and DOS were both derived from CP/M)
Kernel.org (http://www.kernel.org/)
Wikipedia linux kernel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel)
What is Linux?
Linux is a clone of the operating system Unix, written from scratch by Linus Torvalds with assistance from a loosely-knit team of hackers across the Net. It aims towards POSIX and Single UNIX Specification compliance.
It has all the features you would expect in a modern fully-fledged Unix, including true multitasking, virtual memory, shared libraries, demand loading, shared copy-on-write executables, proper memory management, and multistack networking including IPv4 and IPv6.
There Linux viruses about.
Of this I have no doubt.
Wikipedia linux malware (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_computer_viruses)
Excelent article on how virii have to be executed to work in linux from 2004 but still applicable (http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/index.php?page=virus)
The so-called permissions in Linux aren't worth a can of beans. (744 to you!)
Linux Security (http://www.happyassassin.net/2009/01/20/on-linux-security/)
Linux permissions help (http://www.zzee.com/solutions/linux-permissions.shtml)
Linux is no more immune than Windows or Mac O/S. The only reason it doesn't suffer so much is that there are far less users, and therefore less motivation for the criminals that produce the viruses. The sheer mass of Windows users is what guarantees viruses, not any inherent weaknesses in the other O/S. That and the fact that so many users believe they are so important that they can't be infected.
There is much more than just one reason.
So if the largest percentage of webservers on the internet are LAMP(Linux Apache,Mysql, PHP) servers, Virus writers have no motivation to hack Linux for the purpose of controlling those servers..
Linux's quality of code is much higher in general than the other OSes because the code is there for all to see and is under constant peer observation. Meaning that slipping a virus into open source software is much more difficult because everyone can see the code.
Microsoft's lackies have reason to be pissed at Microsoft and it's possible that they add ways to make viruses run on the operating system because they are disgruntled about the pittance the company pays them.
Especially if Microsoft subcontract sections of code to Russia or even if the lackie want's to make some quick extra bucks from a Russian contact.
You get the picture.
Being able to execute files without making them executable first by just clicking on them to activate them is an inherent weekness in Windows. Period.
I would really like to meet someone that thinks that they are so important that their computer is "Virus immune." I don't think most people think like that at all. They are just mislead or not lead at all by Microsoft, Their security partners and other third party security software vendors.
People need to be educated properly because Microsoft has a problem that it cannot control.
More or less likely isn't relevant. The fact that there are significantly and I mean a huge amount more viruses made for Windows makes Windows dangerous.
Fact.
It would take a good whole day to educate someone one to one; Using Windows, On how to lower the risk of computer virus infection. On Linux it would take an hour.
Still, it's now April 1st and no mass outbreak noticed so far.... Fuss over nothing? A way for Norton and their ilk to make more sales in these hard times?
I wouldn't say it's nothing. But it does get everyone to focus on there security on their computers I personally use clamAV for my virus protection and it does a wonderful job and does not use the resources that symantec and others do.
Not trying to bust your bubble just set some things straight with facts.
