On Tue, 2005-03-15 at 22:10 -0600, Brian Fahrlander wrote: > On Tue, 2005-03-15 at 17:22 -0800, Rick Stevens wrote: > > > > And there is always the possibility of passing them on. > > > > IMHO, if you can stop a virus or trojan or whatever, do it. As was > > said above, you could pass it on. I always download to a quarantine > > directory and run clamscan on it. Irun all of my mail through > > clamav/milter, bogofilter and spamassassin. The odds of me passing on > > a virus is fairly remote. It eats a few CPU cycles, but it's well worth > > it. > > Funny how we're all dancing carefully around the point that the only > reason we have viruses is because management is tied to Microsoft. ---- wrong ---- > > Sure, as Linux comes to even more desktops, there's a better chance > for them to come, too. But as it stands there are more Linux machines > than Macs, and Symantec reports 6 Linux viruses, only two found in the > wild, and Microsoft is a host to 60,000. > > I'm sure there will be viral threats in Linux's future. But unlike > the rampant (and lets not forget profitable) home for wayward viruses > called Microsoft, Linux developers will actually _fight_ them, not > release fixes that close some ports and opening more. > > We now have AOL and other services that are burning more than 'a few > cycles' tracing each document going in and out of AOL from millions of > users, while Microsoft, owning all the code (and perhaps > Symantec/McAffee stock) doesn't fix the problems pointed out. > > So go on and on about virus proliferation, but lets not ignore that > the best way to defeat their spread is to stop their host: Windows. > > > > - If it's stupid and it works...it ain't stupid! - > > OH, now THAT's a beautiful tagline. Thanks! ---- NO - the reason we have viruses is because there are people who for reasons of power and/or ability either through understanding technology or copying others can impose their will. The fact that viruses are mostly focused at Windows is because it has such an incredible market share. Some may argue that Windows is inherently insecure - which may be true but they have been trying to close some of the holes. I pretty much disagree with your premise, your discussion and your conclusion above - but none of this has anything to do with Fedora. Craig
