[sticking his head out above the parapet]
It's cheaper than fixing the problem.
Possibly slightly harsh. Consider some points about this -
there are more virus' for Windows because its less secure. True - but when they sat down and designed the OS, ease of doing things as opposed to security level was on their minds.
There are more virus' for Windows because the Development tools for windows are easier to use (if potentially less efficient (although argue about the new .net elsewhere)) for brainless morons.
There are more virus' for Windows because more people use windows. In twenty thirty fourty years time will we be seeing GNU do similar posters for Hurd?
What does this tell us about Linux - that there isnt a good Rapid Prototyping language for it? That the so called "standards" are always so diverse that even if you knew what a target computer was running (irc servers, mail servers and so on). Yes this means we are "free" but it can mean other things - that there isnt a singlually good thing out there.
I know several ALUG members who keep sitting down and going "I defend Open Source because it means we dont have to keep re-writing the wheel everytime we want to use one". If this is so, why are there so many programs which do the same thing as other programs, instead of all of the people who work on these con-current programs working together on one "good", "efficient" one?
J