This says nothing about the susceptibility of Unix machines to viruses.
Well it does in a sort of way, as Unix is such of a platform that is forcing its users to learn about the system in more details, instead of just clicking around. Although I have to admit that with this new generation of Linux users, coming to use only distributions that are created to be as much Windows-like as possible (like Ubuntu etc.), that may not be the case any more.
True most servers, databases etc are housed on Unix boxes, how many emails & websites are accessed on these boxes? How many different peripherals are plugged into these boxes? That's the difference. You don't usually use and access a server like your home machine. You have to actually hack your way into these machines, and these days this is getting harder and harder. Also virtually due to their setup as servers etc they are made impenetrable.
Actually, there are lots of Unix machines that are used both as servers, and for daily work of many of users. For example at my department at university there exist two Linux machines, one for teachers and the other one for students, and both run mail, Web and number of other servers (including SMB server for all Windows workstations accessible by students), and are also accessed daily (either through SSH or X clients) by many people for doing their work. However, the effect of hypothetical Linux virus spread for example by e-mail can't came close to the effect of Window virus: as I've mentioned above, Unix systems have reasonable security architecture, with clear separation between administrator and other users, so eventually files and such of a particular user could be affected, but that's all; that's simply not the case for Windows systems
But I understand your point. Still, if you take into account other types of malware, wouldn't you say that trying to breach into some Unix servers would be much more tempting for crackers than breaching into some dummy desktop Windows machines? So the whole argument that Unix machines are not attractive as target just can't hold.
If you read up to this quote from Kaspersky guy, then please read also rebuttal by Rick Moen - I've linked to this Wikipedia page exactly because it lists several of alike pointers, so that I don't have to beat a dead horse here.
All I'm saying is there is a reason why Windows PCs are so prone to malware, viruses etc, and it may in part have to do with the architecture, but it also has to do with the way Windows is used and by whom. Are the people developing for MS for all these years that daft?
Anyway all I wanted to point out is that people are too quick to toss out Windows. Don't get me wrong, I oftentimes think it's a POS OS, but I still do 95% of my work without errors in Windows.
I've restrained myself from discussion in this thread for exactly the same reason that @
alain mentioned in his message above: whatever OS or anything else works for someone and make him happy - it's great. But if we have to compare, let's base the comparison on sound arguments.