And another Ubuntu convert!
mario.vukelic at dantian.org
Wed Jan 21 23:05:02 UTC 2009
On Wed, 2009-01-21 at 14:31 -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
> My point wasn't that the virus was common or that it was something to be
> afraid of. I just found it interesting that it was first detected in
> 1996 (the same year that Karl started using Linux).
Detected but never seen in the wild.
> I don't understand the opposition to anti virus. What does it hurt to
> have it?
That's because you don't know how it works, obviously.
> It will take a few cpu cycles and a little of bandwidth.
No. by necessity such products need to embed themselves deep into the
OS, adding complexity and bugs. ClamAV is one thing, just scanning
emails, but the pro-AV crowd won't stop there and will soon demand
anti-spyware and whatnot.
Anyone who is forced to run such stuff (I am, at the company) know that
it is NOT about "a few cpu cycles". It also gives a false sense of
security. Clueless people at the company still get affected despite all
the stuff running.
> other thing to note is that many of the viruses that affect Linux aren't
> Linux specific. Attacks will/have come through Firefox, Open Office and
> other multi-platforms. Instead of your system being killed like it would
> were it running Windows it will only ruin your user account but as far
> as I am concerned that will screw me just as much.
That might be true, but I fail to see how AV would help there. It
doesn't on Windows.
More information about the ubuntu-users