3 ms·
Yeah, but less likely frankly, because it's less likely the malware author would take the time to make a ransomware for Linux, though I know it's happened befor
by Subsentient 5y ago
Yeah, but less likely frankly, because it's less likely the malware author would take the time to make a ransomware for Linux, though I know it's happened before. 1% of the market vs 80% of the market, which would you target? And of course, utilities being free on Linux negates the need almost entirely in any case.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y agoRight, so the problem isn't really because "Windows is a bad OS, m'kay", it's because Windows is popular... why might that be, I wonder? Maybe people like using it more...
- phendrenad2 5y agoYeah this type of argument always contradicts itself. "Use Linux because it doesn't have viruses". Why doesn't it have viruses? "It's not popular enough". So by suggesting Linux, thus making it more popular, you're increasing the risk of viruses?
- joshuaissac 5y ago> utilities being free on Linux negates the need almost entirely in any case Some of these utilities are installed by running: curl hxxp://urlshortener.ly/Bde29al | sh > Yeah, but less likely frankly, because it's less likely the malware author would take the time to make a ransomware for Linux Linux is the dominant server OS. Enterprises are far more capable of paying ransoms than individuals.