So yet an other virus wreaks havoc in the Windows community. Linux users are always quick to point out at these times that Linux suffers from none of these problems. But is it a question of flawed versus superior technology, or coverage I wonder? In other words, if Linux were to dominate the market with a 90% share, would we be seeing the reverse? For a virus to have the largest impact, it needs to be written to infect the largest number of machines. If the market share is 90% Windows then maybe it's no wonder that Windows is going to be scrutinised in more detail and exploits found more quickly? And the other OSs in the mean time are taking it easy on the side lines, basking in a false sense of security.
For me the ideal would be a much more balanced distribution of OSs, as this post on Slashdot suggests. This would inevitably foster a more secure environment because a) a lack of a common platform, and b) all (prominant) OSs would be in the same boat as reguards securing themselves.