> I'd say desktop Linux is more insecure than Windows, and the only reason we don't see malware is that nobody uses it. So if high profile targets, like energy companies, started using Linux on the desktop, it may end up being worse than Windows.

What's the basis for your assertion?

At the level of systems we're discussing, a Windows installation would be operated by experienced Windows administrator. Thus the appropriate comparison group for Linux would be something like a university-run supercomputing cluster. We don't often hear of these being taken over for ransom.