I love the NSA. It's like having a secret fan-base you will never see, but they're there, watching everything you write and it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside knowing that I may be some person's only form of unconstitutional entertainment one night.
There are three primary reasons that Linux is not redily susceptible to viruses.
The first being very strict control between user level and root level, for a virus to be effective, it has to infect system files which in Linux means breaking root.
The second is the fact that very few implementations of Linux are the same. There are many ways to achieve the same thing and still be compatible. Further, what code is used by a particular machine is based upon the hardware at the time the Kernel was compiled and what version of Linux being compiled. Different users, using the exact same version of a Linux OS can have huge differences in code implementation and use because of variances in hardware.
The third being how fast any vulnerbility found is fixed.
While it is theoretically possible to write a virus for Linux, it would be very limited in it's affect because of these three factors.
Linux does not enjoy much success in the desktop market, however they are very sucessfull in the corporate server market. Very few implentations of Linux focus upon Desktop use. Linux is also free software, it is illegal to charge for a linux distribution, however, it is not illegal to charge for service support and only offer certain features to those who pay a service contract. Since you cannot charge for Linux, there is not money to pay for advertising. This coupled with MSs marketing stratagies to keep competing software out of retailers severly hurt the home PC implementation of Linux. Redhat and other comercial Linux providers either do not support desktop implementation or target their desktop versions for corporate use, not home. Despite these challenges, Linux use continues to grow annually.
Apple now suffers from many ailments that previously only belonged to MS. What is really interesting about this phenomenon in the Apple market is that all of it has only been since Apple lost the GUI lawsuit to MS. While there are not overt links between the two, certain things are clear. Apple went away from it's previous hardware vendors after the lawsuit. MS gets royalties off of any hardware capable of running MS products. Since Apple switched to Intel based processors, the same as Windows machines, MS now gets royalties off of the processor sales. Apple OS X was altered, both to accomendate the lawsuit and to implement it on Intel processors. Vulnerabilities in Apple have primarily only surfaced since those changes. Yes, OS X is partially based upon Linux/Unix archetectures. However, since Apple keeps strick control of hardware in its systems and the fact that is a single user/home desktop based system, there may not be the strict divisions between Root and User and there are not the variances in implementations found in Linux. Many of the problems we now see from Apple are mysterously very MSish, such as slow updates, failure to fix vulnerabilities, etc.
Last edited by DVSentinel; 04-25-12 at 03:06 PM.
Get off your high horse.
Linux - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. If you only include individuals PCs, you would be correct, bu then again, except for Identity theifs and others seeking personal information, the real threat is to servers and corporations, not individuals, we just get caught in the crossfire.