with all due respect, this isn't true. there are absolutely zero wild viruses for linux, and the few non-wild viruses can't infect a modern linux system without the administrator deliberately installing them.
Your point about linux viruses is true, as well as mine. There are linux viruses, but i didn't mention a thing about ones that are out in the wild, just viruses in general for linux. In this case, it pertains to the proof of concept viruses that were made by developers.
I already explained how much more secure running the system from a user account on a multi-user OS is. It's just your usual approval by approval basis for anything administrative needing to provide the password for approval to happen (approval as in if a virus wanted to have administrator privileges, you'd have to approve of it first, if it doesn't meet your approval, you don't give it administrator privileges).
I remember there was an exploit for ubuntu that was fixed within 24 hrs.
That is the superiority open source holds over closed source; everyone's allowed to see the source code which means more eyes on the project for seeing flaws as opposed to closed source.
I also recommend linux mint as opposed to ubuntu. its based on ubuntu but has non-opensource software installed, which makes setting up things like flash much easier.
Linux mint ought to be the actual ubuntu release, but it's not, thank god it's damn popular though. It's so much better. I'm using it right now because i'm a little lazy right now for grabbing things like codecs, flash, drivers for everything, and since i'm on dialup.
EDIT: In would like to say that I am not a windows hater, and that there are plenty of reasons not to switch to linux, namely because its a pain for new users to set up, especially if their hardware doesn't "just work" at install.
I am a windows hater (there's enough to never want to support them again because they do lie, cheat, and steal. Combine that with the frequent planned obsolescence and scare tactics with baloney software patents; you end up with me who doesn't want to give them money), but i share your view point. The user comes first, which means a big focus on user needs. If one of those needs is windows, then that be fine a lot of people do get their money's worth out of it. It's not like you can't teach a user how to operate windows from a user account (i only show people who run vista or 7 how to do it since XP sucks at it). They picked up the new habit very quickly surprisingly.
Albeit as a windows/microsoft hater (you bought software with too many back doors and a license that restricts use !!!!YAY!!!!) is what i will stay at the end of every day. But, i'm championing the idea of not running a computer through administrator all the time. It's because of the theory that today no one can afford the time or maybe even the money for down time and maintenance when something bad will eventually happen. Luckily you, in todays modern day operating systems, you can run all of them from a user account temporarily accessing administrator when you need it. And, at the end of the day, linux is just a harsh environment for viruses and malware in general.
