• R0cket_M00se@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    10 months ago

    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.

    • Sanguine@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      10 months ago

      Maybe 4% desktop market share. You are not including Linux market share of servers; this would be a more worthwhile target.

      • Evil_incarnate@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        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.

      • R0cket_M00se@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        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.

        • Sanguine@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          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.

          • R0cket_M00se@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            That’s true for all OSs though, you might be a target of convenience but the money is in enterprise networks.