Clamav out of date

[Brian Fahrlander]

Harold Hartley wrote:

> We all know that Microsoft server is connected to the internet and has 
> problems and neededs fixes/patches.
> Well, the same can go for linux, but it depend on how well a admin or 
> end user sets up the configurations in it.
> 
> All in all, neither Linux or Microsoft is superiour over each other and 
> both ends up with fixes or patches to fix any exploitables hole. Its 
> just that all the hackers or crackers spends more time writing viurus's 
> and such for windows and that is why we don't hear much about linux 
> having problems like windows does.

    Uh, no.  I don't mean to start a flame war,  but I've wasted most of 
my life in Microsoft. I've set up thousands of customers between 
Huntsville, Alabama and Evansville, Indiana, who are now addicted to 
Microsoft code. They hate their computers, pay all that money, yet can't 
imagine life without it.

    There is, in fact, an enormous difference.

    When XP was released, as always, there were holes...most, with no 
reason.  Then came SP1.  Some holes were closed, brand new ones opened. 
   And again, SP2, same plan.  And just *somehow* virus writers were 
able to exploit them 20 minutes after leaving the Microsoft download site.

    There is a man in Russia who has posted a bounty.  He will pay you 
$.06 for every CPU that your program gives him control of. This is just 
one of the things keeping a growing stable of over 1,000,000 viruses in 
the typical A/V arsenal.

    Yes, there are exploits. But in Linux they are only accidents, in 
Microsoft, it's a business. I've wasted enough time (96 man-hours in one 
case) ridding my employer's computers of a virus that we understood we 
were protected from. Their software is made by 'bots' that enjoy the 
props for making it to Microsoft, and put in 8 hours and go home. We 
write code, take pride in it, and are severely pissed when someone has 
breaks it.  We actually *care* about the product, even though we don't 
get paid.  That, in itself is a difference.

    I've heard the "Wait until Linux has 300,000,000 computers" 
argument; it doesn't hold water. Linux has always had a shorter 
security-patch release mechanism.  And at no point do we have to be 
paranoid that a security patch will seriously harm our computers for 
market-domination reasons; Microsoft can make no such claim. (See the 
news last week.)

    I work in a Japanese restaurant, smell bait all day (sushi) and most 
of the time I want to puke, when my muscles aren't screaming at me so 
bad I feel like I've been beaten. I do this, because I'd rather be on 
Welfare than work with code that intentionally misleads it's customers, 
offers worthless help (if any at all) unless your company buys a support 
contract.  Ever *call* the 900 number for support?  Their first help: 
reload windows and call back.

    Here, you can meet the authors; they're proud of their work.

    To say neither is better is to yield to political correctness that 
leads to madness. And using something taking so much A/V time, costing 
what it does, all the while putting yourself in a $100,000 noose at the 
point of the BSA, that's madness.  There's a reason why we're all here- 
because we make, and test, and are thankful for, the best and most 
honest code we can make.

> Its just so many people choose windows over linux because they want a 
> plug n play GUI compared to those of us that is willing to learn more 
> about linux and use it.

     Most people don't *choose* Windows over Linux, it's on every 
computer they've ever seen.  And once there's a proprietary package like 
Exchange that digs it's heels into the corporate backbone (by merely 
having a scheduler) they don't want anything else.  But previously (I 
clearly remember there being a Windows For Workgroups, for example) it 
didn't have one, either.  We will.  And what's so hard about doing that 
manually?

     Several studies have shown that learning spreadsheets and such on 
Linux is easier than Windows. The other way is harder. Ask anyone who's 
tried both. And tech support for a given Linux box is about 1/100th the 
time and effort.  This has become an industry norm. One MCSE = 40 
Windows boxes. 1 Good Linux tech=100 to 1,000.

     It's not a choice; it's what they started on, because there are 
only two OS's loaded onto new PCs (though it's about to change): Windows 
and Mac.  Give it time.  We're not growing by leaps and bounds for nothing.

     Sorry; didn't mean to tick you off, just trying to correct the record.

-- 
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Brian Fahrländer                 Christian, Conservative, and Technomad
  Evansville, IN                              http://Fahrlander.net/brian
  ICQ: 5119262                         AOL/Yahoo/GoogleTalk: WheelDweller
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------