, 2003-10-02
To mess up a Linux box, you need to work at it; to mess up your Windows box, you just need to work on it.
Expand all |
Post comment
Linux vs. Windows Viruses
2003-10-02
Anonymous (13 replies)
Anonymous (13 replies)
Linux vs. Windows Viruses - Sad.
2003-10-03
Anonymous (2 replies)
Anonymous (2 replies)
Linux vs. Windows Viruses - Sad. - Misguided
2003-10-06
Anonymous (3 replies)
Anonymous (3 replies)
Linux vs. Windows Viruses - Sad. - Misguided - More Misguided
2003-10-06
Anonymous (3 replies)
Anonymous (3 replies)
Linux vs. Windows Viruses - Sad. - Misguided - More Misguided
2003-10-06
Anonymous (2 replies)
Anonymous (2 replies)
Linux vs. Windows Viruses - Sad. - Misguided - More Misguided
2003-10-07
Anonymous (3 replies)
Anonymous (3 replies)
Linux vs. Windows Viruses - Sad. - Misguided - More Misguided
2003-10-07
Anonymous-2 (1 replies)
Anonymous-2 (1 replies)
Linux vs. Windows Viruses - Sad. - Misguided - More Misguided -- And seriously misguided!
2003-10-08
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
Linux vs. Windows Viruses - Sad. - Misguided - More Misguided -- And seriously misguided!
2003-10-08
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
Linux vs. Windows Viruses - Sad. - Misguided - More Misguided -- And seriously misguided!
2003-10-10
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
Linux vs. Windows Viruses - Sad. - Misguided - More Misguided
2003-10-08
Anonymous (3 replies)
Anonymous (3 replies)
Linux vs. Windows Viruses
2003-10-03
Anonymous (5 replies)
Anonymous (5 replies)
Linux vs. Windows Viruses
2003-10-07
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
Sorry,shill@microsoft.com, but no.
2003-10-03
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
Sorry,ltorvalds@space-for-rent.com, but no.
2003-10-04
Anonymous (10 replies)
Anonymous (10 replies)
MCSEs, what a joke
2003-10-06
Anonymous (3 replies)
Anonymous (3 replies)
RE: Sorry "Sorry,ltorvalds@space-for-rent.com, but no.", but definitely not...
2003-10-06
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
Sorry,ltorvalds@space-for-rent.com, but no.
2003-10-06
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
Sorry,shill@micrsoft.com, but no... again.
2003-10-07
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
Linux vs. Windows Viruses (Another "I HATE WINBLOWZ")
2003-10-05
Anonymous (2 replies)
Anonymous (2 replies)
Linux vs. Windows Viruses (Another "I HATE WINBLOWZ")
2003-10-06
Anonymous (4 replies)
Anonymous (4 replies)
Linux vs. Windows Viruses
2003-10-02
Anonymous (8 replies)
Anonymous (8 replies)
Linux vs. Windows Viruses
2003-10-03
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
Linux will not succeed in replacing Windows at work because..
2003-10-03
Ken H (1 replies)
Ken H (1 replies)
Linux will not succeed in replacing Windows at work because..
2003-10-03
Anonymous (2 replies)
Anonymous (2 replies)
Linux vs. Windows Viruses
2003-10-03
Anonymous (2 replies)
Anonymous (2 replies)
Why this article SUCKS
2003-10-03
Anonymous (2 replies)
Anonymous (2 replies)
Think OpenBSD, Linux and cia are much more SECURE !
2003-10-03
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
Think, yet another troll.
2003-10-06
Anonymous (4 replies)
Anonymous (4 replies)
mail client exploit + local root exploit = just as bad as if you were root anyway.
2003-10-05
AlphaParticle (1 replies)
AlphaParticle (1 replies)
mail client exploit + local root exploit = just as bad as if you were root anyway.
2003-10-07
Anonymous
Anonymous
EDITOR: Please be more aware of sexist pronouns
2003-10-07
Pamela (2 replies)
Pamela (2 replies)
EDITOR: Please be more aware of sexist pronouns?
2003-10-07
Anymouse (1 replies)
Anymouse (1 replies)
EDITOR: Please be more aware of sexist pronouns?
2003-10-08
leavetheworldabetterplacethanyoufoundit (1 replies)
leavetheworldabetterplacethanyoufoundit (1 replies)
Scott's Right, Microsofties. Deal With It.
2003-10-07
Penguinisto (2 replies)
Penguinisto (2 replies)
If Linux is so secure.....
2003-10-08
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
Thor Larholm has written a counterattack to this article...
2003-10-15
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
Re: Thor Larholm has written a counterattack to this article...
2006-03-30
My head is spinning (1 replies)
My head is spinning (1 replies)
Re: Re: Thor Larholm has written a counterattack to this article...
2006-06-15
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)

This is not a factually complete statement.
First, I doubt there is much difference in the current user base of the Mac and Linux. I base this statement on the Google search engine's Zeitgeist figures, which shows the Mac with a 3% share, Linux with a 1% share.
Second, the Mac has been a popular platform since the mid 1980s. Linux has not been around as long, and has not become a popular platform until recently
(last five years or so.)
Third, Mac OS X is very similar to Linux in its security and permissions model. And none of the Mac viruses mentioned in the article affect OS X. To date, there are no viruses that affect Mac OS X.
[ reply ]
Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/columns/188/22908#22908