I think that, after WorksForMe™, Linux’s supposed invulnerability and security are the most oft-quoted rhetoric. Of course, when asked WHY Linux is so rock-solid, the fanboys can never give you a definite answer. They make vague statements about “Unix heritage” (Unix is indestructible!) and “free is more secure” (put $0 on the pricetag and it becomes invulnerable!) Even funnier is when a fanboy will imply that a virus needs to attack the kernel in order to do damage.

Of course, the issue that the post underlines is that a major cause of virus perpetuation are users, which is more of a problem than how software is written. Linux fans reverse software inferiority and user accountability, blaming users when it’s the software’s fault (as in the case of update breakage) and software when it’s the user’s fault (as in the case of virus perpetuation).

What I love most about the “unix is indestructable” is how they ignore Kevin Mitnick, the famous “free Kevin” hacker. That guy hacked so many unix systems, often using guest accounts.

The only reason Unix got “secure” was because it got hacked like crazy back in the 70’s and 80’s. There’s nothing “inherent” about it.

@Administrator

The truth is, a lot (most?) of the Linux fanboys don’t truly understand what Unix is, its history and how Linux relates to it.

Judging by their comments, they seem to think 1) “Linux” and “Unix” are interchangable terms 2) Unix was the greatest example of software engineering ever and 3) Unix was originally free and open-source.

I’ll bet most of them don’t actually know what GNU stands for. It’s an irritating self-referencing acronym for “GNU’s Not Unix”.

I don’t think they even know how to pronounce it. They probably say “noo” or something. And then they can act like smug jerks and correct folks who pronounce it wrong.