Originally Posted by KloroFormd
Actually, a friend's PC with XP Service Pack 1 got destroyed by a virus, and I reformatted and reinstalled a clean copy of XP SP1... and before a virus scanner completed downloading... it was already reinfected. All you had to do was connect to the internet, and it'd exploit holes in SP1 and infect.
So yes, you can get infected by just sitting there.
That's one reason, and if you do happen to download something bad... it could only damage what that user has access to. Running as root is a big NO-NO.
And if malware was made to exploit a flaw in linux... it'd get patched within hours compared to 6 months with Microsoft.
Were you connected directly to the internet, or were you on a LAN? I have NEVER, and I mean NEVER had a computer running Windows XP or Vista get a virus unless I did something really stupid (like run limewire with no virus scanner installed
) I have no idea how you managed to get a virus so quickly unless you did something wrong or downloaded your virus scanner from some weird website.
Regardless, no one has actually said anything proving that Linux is more secure then Windows or vice versa! There has be a lot of "well, Linux should be more secure because of *blank*" or "Windows is not secure because of *blank*", but that doesn't relate to what happens in real life. I am a PC tech, and the amount of actual virus infections I run into is very small. The vast majority of the time the problems are caused by programs the user them self has installed, such as Limewire, MySpace IM (
), WeatherBug, etc.
Also, remember when there was that competition a while back to see if someone could hack into OS X? Some guy found an exploit almost immediately! Since there are so many people trying to hack Windows, the exploits get found quickly and get a patch. Since there arnt as many people trying so hard to hack into Linux/Unix/OS X boxes, the exploits are not found, and remain unpatched.