Linux isn’t safer because it’s more secure, it’s safer because no one writing malware is going to target only 4% of the market when they could write malware for 60% of the market.
But a much harder target, as servers will usually have someone at least semi-competent keeping them updated. Until rising costs and you know, the economy, force the ceo to choose between an IT department and a new boat.
Yeah fair enough. I’d have to assume folks who spend time making malware want a return on their investment, whether financial or status / fame. Not a big ROI on hacking my gaming desktop or a thinkpad I use to stream movies.
True, but that’s the point.
Linux isn’t safer because it’s more secure, it’s safer because no one writing malware is going to target only 4% of the market when they could write malware for 60% of the market.
Maybe 4% desktop market share. You are not including Linux market share of servers; this would be a more worthwhile target.
But a much harder target, as servers will usually have someone at least semi-competent keeping them updated. Until rising costs and you know, the economy, force the ceo to choose between an IT department and a new boat.
Those servers are also sitting in and/or behind DMZs specifically configured with network based intrusion prevention systems to protect them.
So while more valuable, they’re also better protected because network security is a thing.
Yeah fair enough. I’d have to assume folks who spend time making malware want a return on their investment, whether financial or status / fame. Not a big ROI on hacking my gaming desktop or a thinkpad I use to stream movies.
That’s true for all OSs though, you might be a target of convenience but the money is in enterprise networks.