Skip to main content
Unix & Linux

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

6
  • 36
    One issue you brushed past that's worth considering is that the Windows ABI has remained stable for years. (Or rather, MS has gone to a lot of trouble to support all the various ABIs they've released transparently. WoW64, for example.) This means that an executable that runs on Windows 3.1 may well run on Windows 7. This makes for a monoculture within a monoculture: malware writers don't have to rebuild their programs for every version of Windows, as you often have to do for Linux. Commented Oct 5, 2010 at 15:30
  • 52
    I think another reason for the low level of viruses in Unix/Linux and Mac systems is the presence of global package management systems, with trusted repositories configured by default. Whereas for Windows go online to download software from direct malevolent vendors they find while googling, on a unix/linux/mac you use your internal software to browse a repository where new entries are scrutinized and removed if problems are noticed. Commented Dec 4, 2010 at 13:08
  • 34
    Also, Windows being the land of the proprietary (though that happens on other platforms, I'm looking at you Mac OS), people tend to look for cracked software for this platform significantly more than for others. And going in dark alleys online is no different than going to dark alleys in real life: expect troubles. How can you trust a drug dealers to provide what they advertise? And in an unmodified form? So how can you trust cracked software dealers to provide what they advertise? And without the software being modified? Commented Dec 4, 2010 at 13:10
  • 5
    Also Data is separated from code and config files (var & home; bin & usr; etc). Look in Windows- Program Files- binaries, config files, data (MS SQL). You can mount dirs with no exec for data. Apps don't execute every file you trow at them (mail clients word processors). Open code for review. Quick fix for problems (check response time for RedHat and Debian guys after threat found in the kernel). When a problem found- the Distro pushes some update (I didn't realize for example- KDE is looking for +x flag on desktop shortcuts for example to execute them which feature was missing at some point) Commented Jan 10, 2011 at 18:07
  • 1
    Haylem's comment above is right on, it would be interesting to see if this is "game-changing" for reducing the "very secure" image of OSX Macs, now a few years later... I see mal-conditions on OSX almost everyday, because users have downloaded and installed cracked software (the average person not even shying away from executing 'file.sh' that opens in terminal, and typing their admin password!) Commented Jul 26, 2016 at 17:45