> I'm fairly certain that you'll find a good number of security bugs in Linux, for one no program with more then 10 lines can be bug free from the start and a program the size of an OS will never be bug free.
Huh. One of those silly axioms which is all the more ridiculous for being quoted at all. 10 lines of *what*, for one thing. I've written several large programs and I can assure you that they are/were totally bug free and did exactly what they were designed to do. Nothing more, nothing less.
But a 'bug' isn't necessarily a security issue in any OS, although it is interesting to compare and contrast those potential security issues which pop up occasionally in Linux and the way in which they might be exploited - with those which pop up in Windows and the ease with which they are exploited. It's simplistic to just say 'there are security issues' without taking into account the details.
> Then ofcourse there's the permission system, which in linux means that almost all malware that you do manage to contract, it will after all be pretty much inevitable that you get your machine infected with malware
What Linux malware? Go on, find some. Linux uses the same security model as Unixen - go on, find some for that while you're looking. Shouldn't be too hard because it's very popular and in one form or another, has been around since 1970-odd.
> once Linux becomes a popular OS, will end up running on user priviledges and as such will be an easy target to any anti-malware program, which would be running at an admin or kernel level.
This tired old "if Linux was popular" chestnut is nonsense. All you're basically saying is that if everyone drove a Ferrari there would be more occurrences of <some common problem found on cheap run-abouts> - on the basis that both are cars. What you miss for each car/OS is the different design and quality of workmanship and that one was built from the ground up with high-quality mechanics/security designed in from day one.
You seem to have a rather mixed idea of user privileges. In order for anything to run with root privileges, one must first become root to be able to do anything destructive to the OS or a running process - and in order to become root, you must first gain access to the OS. That's *considerably* difficult to achieve - even allowing for the odd security issue cropping up.
> Personally I'm in favour of a mandatory exam before a person is allowed to have administrator access to a computer.
I'd much rather see the OS manufacturer being properly dealt with for continuing to market such an insecure mess. Why *should* users have to be careful with attachments, or get paranoid about some websites, or dance around ensuring virus libraries are up to date?