porchrat
Honorary Master
I prefer the term 'less exploited'
Why would you write a virus to take out a fraction of the computers out there when you can get the majority.
Actually Linux makes up a a fair portion of the server market (13.8% of the total market as of 2007 according to the IDC and that number grows every year). Some of the world's most important information is stored on Linux servers.
Surely virus makers would be interested in that?
Unless you assume that virus makers aren't interested in how important the information is and are then instead motivated by fame. How famous would the virus be that decimated the supposedly secure Linux? Wouldn't that be enough motivation?
So personally I prefer the term 'more secure'.
It isn't just Linux. OpenBSD, Solaris etc. are all regarded as pretty secure.