"Tony Hogarty" wrote in message
newsan.2004.12.16.17.08.29.773277@tjhpropertygar bage.co.uk...
....
No unfortunately you are very wrong in your assumption. There have been
attempts to write viruses for *nix sysytems previously and fortunately
they come to nothing because they can carry no useful payload and more
importantly they cannot propogate. Read this article for a fuller
description of the differences http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/188

Essentially, that says that the main differences are that there are too many
different programmes out there for one virus to be a problem for everyone
and that Linux does not do some of the things that have proved to cause
problems with Windows. The first is consistent with my statement about their
relative obscurity. The second simply means that the system is not
vulnerable to problems that have been identified with an entirely different
operating system in the past. Nothing in the article convinces me that, if a
multi-billion pound industry, which probably motivates it programmers as
much by fear of what happens if they fail as it does by the rewards if they
succeed, would not find vulnerabilities to exploit, if it found the desire
to do so. The relativly better security probably does protect it from the
occasional destructive geek. However, I would need a lot more convincing
that it could withstand the sort of highly organised, well funded attacks
that MS products are subjected to.

Colin Bignell