>Finally, because Linux is a ubiquitous server operating system, its security is under constant attack, and Linux desktop users benefit from fixes to the vulnerabilities.
I think this kind of argument works both ways
Attacking servers is harder and probably may give you better "reward" (stolen data), but...
Attacking normal people is easier (I think its fair to assume normal user is worse at computers than e.g trained admin), so you can do it at bigger scale and normal user may not want to sue/find you/call cops meanwhile if you're hacking companies then things are more likely to be very serious.
> > Finally, because Linux is a ubiquitous server operating system, its security is under constant attack, and Linux desktop users benefit from fixes to the vulnerabilities.
> Attacking servers is harder and probably may give you better "reward" (stolen data), but Attacking normal people is easier so you can do it at bigger scale...
I think that attacking normal people is easier. I disagree that it scales though. Normal people have huge variances in their systems and the version they run, their network connectivity, their IT savvy, etc. and therefore the kinds of exploits required to break into their home systems will vary a lot.
The variance in commercial systems is probably as high, but who cares since you only need to take down one or two, rather than hundreds or thousands, for equivalent payoff.
The pick-pocket will make a million dollars more slowly than the bank robber.
I think this kind of argument works both ways
Attacking servers is harder and probably may give you better "reward" (stolen data), but...
Attacking normal people is easier (I think its fair to assume normal user is worse at computers than e.g trained admin), so you can do it at bigger scale and normal user may not want to sue/find you/call cops meanwhile if you're hacking companies then things are more likely to be very serious.
Thus, both are under constant attacks.