Isn Microsoft Corporations market dominance, making Linux an insignificant target, the only reason it doesn have a virus problem?
Not at all. This question is virus pundits’ pons asinorum: If they can’t think past this fallacy, don’t even try to reason with them, as they’re hopelessly mired in rationalisation.The speaker’s supposition is that virus writers will (like himself/herself) ignore anything the least bit unfamiliar, and attack only the most-common user software and operating systems, thus explaining why Unix viruses are essentially unknown in the field. This is doubly fallacious: 1. It ignores Unix’s dominance in a number of non-desktop specialties, including Web servers and scientific workstations. A virus/trojan/worm author who successfully targeted specifically Apache httpd Linux/x86 Web servers would both have an extremely target-rich environment and instantly earn lasting fame, and yet it doesn’t happen.2. Even aside from that, it completely fails to account for observed fact: Assume that only 1% of Internet-reachable hosts run x86 Linux (a conservative figure). Assume that only one virus writer out
Related Questions
- Given the costs of buying new software and installation, why should someone use Linux over an already established Microsoft market?
- Isn Microsoft Corporations market dominance, making Linux an insignificant target, the only reason it doesn have a virus problem?
- How well will Linux eat into Microsofts market share for desktop operating systems?
