> Linux has a culture of people running random commands off the internet which is also an easy vector to get people to install malware.

It's really not and the culture is not that big.

In Windows, ALL software is installed through suspicious means. In Linux world, MOST software is not. That's the difference.

If some dumbass wants to curl a random URL into a shell that's their problem. That's a very rare occurrence.

> You can do the same thing but with a Linux binary of "photoshop."

Yes, but it seems to me you are choosing to be dense on purpose and it's irritating me.

Please read what I am actually saying. I'm not saying it's impossible to make malware for Linux systems. I'm saying the CULTURE of Linux users is not to download random executables. So if I do that, it wouldn't be very effective. If I upload a random ELF executable to download.com, close to nobody is going to download it. On Windows, this is not the case.

> This is due to more consumers using Windows than Linux.

Again, I've already addressed this. It seems you cut off the quote too early.

This is PART of the reason, but we have to acknowledge how much easier it is to actually distribute malware on Windows.

The "popularity" argument is also just a bad argument. Linux is absolutely not unpopular - almost all the servers worldwide run some Linux distro. Those servers, lots of them, contain valuable data. They are absolutely a target for malware authors. There's probably more servers running Debian alone than Windows Server and it's not even close. Even still, there's a lot more malware that runs on Windows Server than Debian.

> Linux Distros...

There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding here.

What you are proposing is a change to the Linux kernel which allows it to not be modified in some way. That's not something that is a distribution concern - that's a kernel API concern. Which will never be implemented in the kernel for the reasons already specified.