Leader: Of course Linux is more secure...

Research out today found that 78 per cent of developers working with Linux claim never to have had their systems hacked - cue widespread praise for the unrivalled security of open source operating systems.

But many readers will say to themselves: "So what?"

What does that statistic prove? Those that commissioned the research may well like us to believe it means Linux is fundamentally more secure than Windows. And there are many in the Linux community and wider IT audience who would concur. But let's assume that's not what the discussion should really be about - after all, IT is as much about perception and marketing as any product these days.

The question many will raise is: "But isn't that simply because it's less attractive to hackers?"

Wouldn't car thieves rather steal a Lamborghini than a Lada? So why shouldn't those in the business of cybercrime not want to target the biggest returns? And those bigger returns undoubtedly come with crimes against Microsoft products.

Others have come up with similar analogies. John Thompson, CEO of Symantec, recently came up with a fairly neat one, likening virus writers and hackers to graffiti artists.

Thompson said: "If somebody writes graffiti they're not going to write it on a wall at the end of a dead-end alley. They're going to write it on a train that travels right through the city centre."

In Thompson's opinion the ubiquity of Microsoft's operating system simply offers a more attractive canvas for the virus writers – hence the higher number of attacks aimed at Windows vulnerabilities.

It's difficult to even address the 'inherently less secure' issue of Microsoft software when the targets are recognised as being so different in size.

At this stage it's worth noting that when earlier this year silicon.com asked its audience 'Why might Linux be more secure than Windows?' 41.2 percent said it would be because of the open source development model and 31.8 per cent said because it is not as widely used. Is that a victory for open source? Consider 27 per cent simply chose the response 'It isn't more secure'.

Bringing the matter back to today's research, there's the fact that 78 per cent say they haven't been hacked. That means 22 per cent have been.

Almost a quarter isn't necessarily a great return, not if there hasn't even been much of a concerted effort. Was this research the group really wanted to release?