I found this to be a bit funny...A security expert says,
The evangelical Linux view of Unix as being immune to malware because of its intrinsic security is based more on wishful thinking than on fact. A well-secured and properly patched Windows installation (I'm thinking NT and its derivatives here, of course) is more secure than the average out-of-the-box Linux machine, especially a desktop machine used by a single individual who always runs as root. Unix is not and never has been automatically secure. Looking at vulnerabilities lists and vendor advisories, we see a constant stream of security patch releases.
Why on earth would he compare Windows users to a person running r00t in GNU/Linux??
Read the article here:-
http://www.securityfocus.com/infocus/1695
007


