On Jul 12, 2013 4:32 PM, "Volker Armin Hemmann" <volkerar...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > Am 12.07.2013 18:36, schrieb Timur Aydin: > > On 7/5/2013 11:12 PM, Dale wrote: > >> I since did some googling and it seems I am right and he just thought I > >> was some know nothing guy he could sell some service too. Anyway, has > >> anything changed to make Linux more prone to viruses than it used to > >> be? I read a percentage somewhere that said like 99% of viruses are > >> windoze only. Is there a indisputable source of information on this? > > > > Linux is inherently more secure than Windows, but it isn't so much > > more secure that only 1% of all viruses can attack it. Virus > > developers don't have a financial incentive to develop Linux viruses > > (not enough Linux users, most Linux users knowledgeable about > > computers, and moral reasons). > > > moral reasons... you just made my day.... >
Yeah, that made me think back to a reddit AMA with a guy who ran a botnet and everyone kept asking him about morals.
