Vote--> which is safer: Windows with all updates OR naked Linux?
in [Anti-Virus]
|
Prev: Avira version 10
Next: un anti-virus
From: FromTheRafters on 26 Mar 2010 19:22 "Charlie Wilkes" <usexpedition(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:15aawar8466vt.e46w2uudulhg.dlg(a)40tude.net... > I hope you are right about that infiltration. I would like to see the > Linux > marketshare grow because it will mean more support. Yes! :o) > I have been using Ubuntu for the past couple of years. I can't see > that it > is in any way inferior to Windows, and it's a lot lighter. Linux is *not* inferior. Windows is playing catch-up and is doing quite well at it recently. Their userbase is grumbling, but it is for the betterment of the internet that they 'get in line' with regard to security. [...] > But, Ubuntu lacks decent h.264 codecs, which is why I have largely > switched > back to Windows. The value of Windows is not supplied by the company > that > gets the license fee. It is supplied by all the 3d parties who support > Windows. Yes, in my mind I refer to this as the "Betamax Syndrome" - superior technology fails in the marketplace because of a lack of outside support. Betamax refers to Sony's videotape player technology which many agree was superior to VHS (back when the "HS" stood for "helical scan" not "home system" - (and Pluto was still a planet)). The availability of popular movies on prerecorded tapes in VHS format made all the difference.
From: FromTheRafters on 26 Mar 2010 19:25 "ToolPackinMama" <philnblanc(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:hoiqt6$do4$2(a)news.eternal-september.org... > On 3/26/2010 11:56 AM, Charlie Wilkes wrote: >> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 21:34:55 -0400, FromTheRafters wrote: > >>> ...does Linux really *want* that marketshare? I'm tellin' ya - the >>> Linux >>> userbase is getting de-clued as we speak due to infiltration by >>> users >>> that would otherwise use Windows7 >> >> I hope you are right about that infiltration. I would like to see the >> Linux >> marketshare grow because it will mean more support. > > Well, I thought that was the idea. Microsoft being evil, and Linux > being more secure than Windows and all. > > How hard-hearted does a guy have to be to tell people people who want > to join Linux users that they are not welcome? :oD ....but seriously, many think that there should be a test and a license application. :o)
From: FromTheRafters on 26 Mar 2010 20:01 "Dustin Cook" <bughunter.dustin(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:Xns9D47BF9C9FB14HHI2948AJD832(a)69.16.185.247... > This example has nothing really to do with windows vs linux wars (I > just > don't see any end to that in site. They both have benefits and > drawbacks > and its upto the user to get over them.. hehe) but it's another way > for a > virus to do some replicating... Even if they are not very successful viruses, you don't want to get one. Unless you are capable of detecting them by close visual inspection of source files or executable files - you will need some kind of software assistance. > A few viruses would seek out source code, say.. vb files, asm files, > even > .c files; modify the source code with their own and re-save it. > Allowing > the would be user to later incorporate the viralness into his compiled > software; not being the wiser. From a programming alone standpoint, > you > have to admit; it's a bit clever. :) That is what I vaguely implied by my comment that they don't have to be *direct* about it. Indirect infection they call it, but to be sure, some executable file's need more translation before being set in memory as an executable image - source code gets translated into a program file and the program file gets translated into an executable image - looks kinda like PE infection is actually an indirect method too. Since there is no chance for the average user to intercede between that final translation step (making the image) and the execution of that image, a program file can be considered executable. ....and what was that other...code integration? Program file => decompiled program => virus inserted => recompiled program => infected program. My antagonist has gone a long way toward proving my *other* point regarding the infiltration of the Linux userbase by clueless individuals. :oD
From: FromTheRafters on 26 Mar 2010 20:12 "ToolPackinMama" <philnblanc(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:hohdja$hu2$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > I take back what I said earlier: Linux is for idiots now. I should > know, I am one. > > [I can't believe I just poked that and installed it... sheesh!] Linux has an adept partitioning tool and will happily coexist with other systems (using grub or lilo it will even set up a dual boot system for you). I'm certainly not here to disrespect Linux (or troll the advocates), but the virus problem is a computer science problem not a specific OS problem. The crossposting has brought two disparate groups to a discussion about "malware" and I just wanted to make it clear that *viruses* are a special case of malware and don't fall into the "insecure OS" debate.
From: FromTheRafters on 26 Mar 2010 20:18
"ToolPackinMama" <philnblanc(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:hohebl$tgj$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > On 3/26/2010 12:35 AM, ToolPackinMama wrote: > >> I take back what I said earlier: Linux is for idiots now. I should >> know, >> I am one. > > Oh, I am back in my Windows partition now, and everything is fine. > > Better than fine: Ubuntu didn't even overwrite the files I had on my > second partition: it created a folder for itself there, and left my > other files intact. It also very modestly left Windows as my default > boot partition. I didn't tell it to do that, it did it automatically. > > I'm really, REALLY impressed! > > So... I take it that I don't need to install antivirus on my NAKED > Linux? Is that true? If it's not true, tell me ~now~. If it were me, and a leisure (home) machine, I wouldn't bother. Not because Linux is immune though (it isn't). |