Re: Viruses

"Eric Schreiber" <eric at ericschreiber dot com> wrote:
Paul Allen wrote:

The most succesful mechanism is people who don't take, or even
understand, basic precautions.

Sorry, but this is wrong. The most successful virus propagation
mechanism is an OS that propagates viruses by design.

If that were the case, I'd have a virus every time some idiot sends me
an infected attachment. I've received hundreds over the years, but
since I am not a weak link - e.g. I don't blindly run attachments -
I've never gotten zapped. My neighbor up the street who clicks on every
damn thing they see, by contrast, has hundreds. Same operating system,
different operators.

And another neighbor in the next block over does exactly the
same thing (clicks on everything) and yet he never gets a virus.

Of course he runs Linux and doesn't need to know anything about
being careful.

Nonsense. Linux (and Unix in general) is inherently less
vulnerable to viruses than Windows. Changes in Linux popularity
cannot alter its vulnerability.

You missed the point. One of the main safeties of Linux is that
relatively few 'regular people' use it.

*He* got the point. Which is that your point is invalid.

Thus, Linux-based virus attacks
have difficulty reaching critical mass. If Linux does manage to catch
on in the home market (and I hope it does), there will be a great many
users there who don't understand basic precautions.

And while there will *always* be many users who don't understand
viruses, *none* of them will be getting virus infections if they
run any of the Unix based operating systems. That mechanism
simply does not work with a Unix base OS.

Nope. What's happening is that you're exposing your ignorance of
the different types of possible attacks. A virus is a bit of code
that attaches itself to a program, loosely speaking.

Hardly. I assure you, I'm not in the least bit ignorant about how
viruses, worms, assorted malware or computers in general work.

You've repeated the several above incorrect statements 3 times
now? What else should we call it if you don't understand why or
how a virus is not effective unless certain conditions exist in
the OS?

Wouldn't it be easier to just use an OS that doesn't need all those
precautions?

"All those precautions", as you put it, amounts to: don't download from
an untrusted site, don't run attachments, and apply current patches.

I download from anywhere, can run attachments without fear, and
rarely ever apply patches (and certainly none just to avoid viruses).

It's hardly an exhausting effort. No need to background A/V software,
just have it around to test anything suspicious.

Why bother? Just run an OS where a virus is not a threat.

Easier? Perhaps, since the computer would be useless and I'd just shut
it off. You see, I make my living writing software. None of my personal
consulting clients, nor my day job customers, want Linux software. They
want Windows applications.

There's one born every minute. You can make a good living
supplying them with what they want. That is indeed a very
reasonable business plan, as long as *you* don't get suckered
too...

The lack of certain applications is fixable.

Right. Meanwhile, while we wait for that to happen, some of us are
merrily making a nice living. With Windows.

If everyone just simply said no to running horrible OS's, which
ones have all the "certain applications" would change literally
overnight. As it is, it will take awhile, but in 10-15 years...
you'd better understand how Linux works.

Microsoft will eventually be left in the corner to gnaw the ends of
its old plots.

Suuuuure. Ok.

Yep.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@xxxxxxxxxx
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Viruses
    ... mechanism is an OS that propagates viruses by design. ... I'd have a virus every time some idiot sends me ... Changes in Linux popularity ... users there who don't understand basic precautions. ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: "Bugbear" virus in Linux?
    ... >> Linux binaries if a system were accidentally booted with the floppy ... but that doesn't mean that the virus author has such ... a common means of propagation of DOS viruses ... BBSes, where they infect floppies, that get passed ...
    (comp.os.linux.misc)
  • Re: ClamAv: is anyone paying attention?
    ... there are, currently, zero Linux viruses. ... Maybe we should agree on what a virus is, ... Why does Symantec and Sophos list a Linux 'virus' (Symantec lists ... Of course you will probably point out they are windows viruses so only ...
    (Ubuntu)
  • OT: Is Linux Really More Secure Than Windows?
    ... Religious evangelists on both sides of the Windows vs. Linux aisle would ... That doesn't mean that Linux can't be exposed to viruses. ... All of this virus havoc is being unleashed on Microsoft systems. ... the bigger and better the target they create. ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: Antivirus in FC3?
    ... >> IMHO, if you can stop a virus or trojan or whatever, do it. ... > reason we have viruses is because management is tied to Microsoft. ... Sure, as Linux comes to even more desktops, there's a better chance ...
    (Fedora)