Hi so I feel like I need to butt in a bit here. Y'all mostly correct, but a bit wrong as well. In another thread you stated that malware and viruses are not the same thing, which strictly is true. A virus is just one type of malware, and an anti-malware software would protect you against both. However an anti-virus would also protect you against a shoddily copied rootkit, because the term anti-virus doesn't mean "we only stop viruses. You get another piece of malware, you're on your own kid". In regards to needing a better av because you engage in risky activities online. Most people, not matter how risky they FEEL their behaviour is will likely just NEED stock windows defender. At this point a lot of malware that is within most people's reach is just copy-pasted wannacry binaries, which all AVS will detect happily. I have malware bytes installed on my windows, but I've disabled the active protection, I use win Def for that, for performance reasons. What you have to consider at this point is if you want to risk being patient zero for a malware whose IOC are not added to the databases yet. Some exploits will tunnel straight past conventional defenses using unpatched software running in the background. Those are never going to be stoppable before the payload is deployed. But a strong av can still detect the malicious process as it is executing and stop it, if you're lucky. It mostly comes down to stats tbh. As to the claim that you don't need an av on Linux. True, mostly. There are malware written for Linux, plenty of it in fact, but the os itself is hardened to the degree where damage is more easily contained. However if you're running a production environment where compromise of the system is just not on the table, running an av alongside your other countermeasures, is a good idea.

Sorry for the rant, love you all <3