there is also an industry around securing unix/linux. Your point?

The Linux security industry works by consulting with enterprise customers to help properly configure and defend servers and similar enterprise systems.

The Windows security industry makes millions of dollars every year by selling software that tries and fails to patch up the vulnerabilities in Windows system to enterprise and private customers.

There isn't actually a Linux security industry; there is a Linux consulting industry, much like there is a Windows consulting and IT services industry.

oh I can think of a bunch of anti-virus programs for linux machines aswell as firewalls, anti spywares. The reason windows is more open to virus attacks is because it's more popular and thus is more interresting to exploit the weakness off, also the 'bugs' of windows are fixed for free, a virus is not a bug, it are attacks on a feature.

Unix and Linux are less popular and face fewer of these attacks

http://www.desktoplinux.com/articles/AT3307459975.html

Is a nice indication of such.

That's fallacious. There are more Unix and Linux web, mail, and ftp servers than there are Windows ones. Most don't have antiviral sotware of any kind, and no security software besides the standard Linux firewall. Viral attacks to those are nearly unheard of; and they are incapable of damaging the system as code running through a security vulnerability just doesn't have the permissions to touch any system files. Linux home users, generally speaking, don't use any antiviral software and don't have any security issues. Losing all your files to a virus is unheard of. The 'Linux has few viruses because it's unpopular' argument is just untrue, first because Linux isn't unpopular in the server market and second because there are few, if any, Linux viruses in the wild and most have immense difficulties in propagating.

Also, most viruses spread through application software rather than vulnerabilities in the operating system itself. Hence, not using IE and Outlook is nearly enough to secure a Windows system as long as you're not a total idiot (IM buddy you never heard of comes and says 'lol click this lol its not a virus'. Are you going to click?) Vulnerabilities in FOSS systems also tend to go away much faster, first because the raw programming power tends to get critical bugs fixed faster, and the release cycles don't wait for massive patches to happen. And finally, the Windows interoperability model, until very recently, was based on executing anything that looks like executable code. Microsoft still supports this 'feature', even though it has proven to be a huge source of insecurity, because of backwards compatibility.

Also note that the fact that very few Linux viruses exist on the wild (And infections are nearly unheard of) is a good incentive for malware coders , as it's a challenge. There have been numerous attempts and proof-of-concept viruses. And software development in Linux is a whole lot easier and faster than it is on Windows. And you have the sources to make finding vulnerabilities easier.

And is much more difficult in linux to delete all kind of system files and directories, by a virus or just by a happy delete key user ("Mmm I don't remember having installed anything called System, let's delete this directory to make room for my mp3 downloads").

Hmm... I wonder what's gonna happen when Mac starts using pentium processors in -all- their machines, and also what'll happen when people start thinking "Oooh shiny I can put windows on a mac and it'll be secure since its on a mac and therefore I don't have to put any antivirus or spyware protection WHEEE!"

First of any commercial server worth speaking off is behind an external firewall and virus datastream check. If it isn't you have a bad host and should really consider going to another provider. As an example I once made a linux virus for the military to test internal systems on howmuch damage it could cost, damage total was I could access 5gb+ of restricted information without entering my clearence code.

Second servers in general (including windows servers) are not vulnerable to a viral or intruder attack because if you have a good admin then your permissions are set right and most systems that make windows so vulnerable will be disabled. (A server doesn't need .net environments). a virus heavily relies on the stupidity of the user. The only real threath to a server is what your customer uploads and rest assured all templates have an antivirus on that part for dual reasons. 1. Safefty of the system itself, 2. safety of your visitors. Who here would subscribe to a mail server without anti virus checks? (gmail, yahoo, msn all have virus checks).
The only reason to pick linux above windows is because linux is more stable (well and free).

Even in the server market Linux doesn't even have 1/3rd of the market. And it's undeniable there are a lot more windows workstations then linux workstations that access the internet. It's one of the reasons games mainly get made for windows. Therefor one that wants to cause harm with a virus is going for the bigger chunk and makes his virus for windows.

Iridriel the bases of Unix hacking is to stay dormant untill the user or a process accidently gives you root access.

I am a computes engineer I know the bases of *nix hacking. It was quite popular at college

The good thing is, the chances you're given root access by a random user or process are smaller in *nix than in windows. When a process needs admin rights in linux you're asked to provide the password.. The average user in windows moves around the internet with a full provileged account and complaints if he cannot install a game/program because he hasn't admin access. In linux you usually don't need admin accounts for stuff that only you are going to use.

Server wise, security depends mostly on how paranoid and good at his job the relevant techie is. If I am in charge of securing a server with a distro I am not familiar with I probably will leave so many holes it'll look as a gruyere.

the most secure system for servers in my oppinion is BSD

The problem with full access to a source code is that bad people can easily use this sourcecode to create the virus to use a less known or even unknown security error. (my virus exploited an error in a root daemon that ofcourse was fixed the moment I send the data to the coder)

also people working in administrator accounts on windows is the same as working constantly in root, the problem is not the system but the human using it, the option (or atleast in windows xp pro) is given to restrict user accounts and I'm not talking about the easy click tool but the real xp admin tools that allow you to customize. Though I admit I work in admin mode myself because I don't care much about viruses since I reinstall windows every 2 months.