Nintendo Switch review: Hands on with the intuitive modular console and its disappointing games…
but obviously didn't run click here . The point I'm making is, there's always a risk of me passing it onto some poor unsuspecting Windows user if I hadn't found it in my email folder. Some pundits say you don't need antivirus for Linux, I think that's a selfish statement, I think you do need it to stop the spread of these nasties, or am I wrong?
'In fact it's probably easier to write a virus for Linux because it's open source and the code is available'.....click here The pundits that you are reading are idiots.
That article is date: 05 Dec 2001
Seem to be taking their time over it a trifle.
I've read that article with interest. They mention "social engineering" in the article, what it amounts to if you click on an attachment which asks to write to the Kernel, then more fool you, that's the point of Linux, you cannot write to the Kernel without permission from the Root Administrator. But I think social engineering is a common problem with Windows as well, so the OS is not important, education is!
I think virus can, and probably will be written for applications that maybe running in a user account, but big deal, just delete the user account and all the folders then set it up again, in fact I can reinstall my OS back and have it running exactly as it was before in about one hour, and I'm not talking about an image either.
click here and there wouldn't be AVs for Linux if there were no attacks......click here just because the original was 5 years ago does not make it out of date. In any case I suspect thast most Linux users are spending too much time configuring their 'systems' to notice any attacks or they think that viruses are part of the OS. When less than 7% of desktops are projected to use Linux in 2007 it kind of makes writing viruses useless due to general apathy
ps the pundits are still idiots and they ought to have a look at virus and worm attacks on Linux servers compared to Windows...that is if they can use a search facilty. ;-)))
Yep and my Windows machine caught about 20 million! ;-)
"Yep and my Windows machine caught about 20 million! ;-)"
I nearly put the flags out because there was one, then I noticed it was a Windows virus, Oh well!
Well done on hooking me with the subject of this thread, you sneaky man you. ;)
"The point I'm making is, there's always a risk of me passing it onto some poor unsuspecting Windows user if I hadn't found it in my email folder."
Only if you're the sort of person who accidentally forwards random virus-laden mail around. I get plenty of MS Windows viruses in my mailbox, of course, but so what? I don't do any sort of dedicated AV scanning on them; procmail recipies and spamassassin filtering deals with 95% of it (I'm not afraid of the attachments, I just don't want to see them in my inbox). The rest? Well, mutt has a keypress mapped to 'delete', or I can save it and run Spamassassin's Bayes filter against it later.
"I think you do need it to stop the spread of these nasties, or am I wrong?"
You can help stop the spread of Windows viruses by advocating Linux to MS Windows users.
All the best,
"there wouldn't be AVs for Linux if there were no attacks...... [...]
just because the original was 5 years ago does not make it out of date."
Dearest wizard - first, it *does* make it out of date. I hear similar arguments on a regular basis - "Windows is only targeted because it's popular", and "Linux would have the same problems if it had the same 'market share'". Sorry, but no.
Now, my normal reply to this garbage is to ask if Windows would have the same security problems if it used Unix-style security. *Then* the Windows apologists tell me Windows wasn't built secure from the ground up, so Unix has an 'unfair advantage'! Sheesh, as they say (all right, as I say) "Another day, another Windows remote root exploit".
Note also the quotes from the guys from the AV companies. These people have a vested interest in pushing their AV products for desktop Linux so OF COURSE they want Linux users to worry about viruses - and pay up like the users of less-robust operating systems do. Here comes the clue-train: the Windows AV industry has been saying the same for years, it's because they're afraid of their business model being threatened with increases in Linux desktop use.
The real reason you might want an AV program to run under Linux is for detecting Windows viruses. Isn't it obvious? You can have your Linux mail server scan for and delete Windows viruses so the Windows desktop users don't get their systems infected.
Finally, there's the old FUD classic about open source software being less secure because the source code is available. My Ghod, man! At least fall for the insidious, clever FUD, not the obvious stuff.
"In any case I suspect thast most Linux users are spending too much time configuring their 'systems' to notice any attacks or they think that viruses are part of the OS."
He he. No offense meant man, but you sound like you know nothing about Linux and Linux users. I felt a bit embarrased on your behalf, reading that.
"ps the pundits are still idiots and they ought to have a look at virus and worm attacks on Linux servers compared to Windows...that is if they can use a search facilty. ;-)))"
C'mon, do us the honor of providing a few links, rather than implying... well, I don't know exactly _what_ you're implying, it's hard to say. I read the above as meaning "Windows servers suffer more from worm and virus attacks compared with Linux", but you might mean the exact opposite. Do tell!
Dennis "Bombadil" Goycoolea
Linux I think is much more secure and faster and stable than windows.
The only thing windows has that linux doesn't is that windows,is more compatible with everything.
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.