Antivirus and anti spam for ubuntu desktop

[Liam Proven]

On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 12:00 AM,  <valhalla2100 at comcast.net> wrote:


> If you read my first e/m note you would know the events of the last
> day that I used Ubuntu.

You know, there really isn't much point to your "e/m" abbreviation. It
saves only 2 characters, nobody else uses it or will understand it (at
least, I've never seen it before), and in computing and electronics,
"EM" (or E/M or E-M) means "electromagnetic", as in, radiation,
generally pertaining to leakage thereof.

> Repeat: I turned the computer on and attempted to send an e/m note.
> Got a message that stated - in effect - that that service could not
> be mounted.

Without knowing exactly what that message was - verbatim - nobody
knows what caused it. However, we can safely say that it was not
malware, because there is virtually no Linux malware & that that there
*is* is proof-of-concept and demo code only found inside computer
security research labs.

> I shut the computer down and restarted.  I was not able to get into
> Ubuntu.  There was a similar message for everything.

Again, I'm afraid we'd need to know the verbatim message.

> The above was after I activated a embedded link of a Google Alert
> for PhotoShop Layers.  After the page open I was taken to another
> site that filled the screen with pop ups.  The only way to get out
> of that was to turn the power off.

Nonsense. There are half a dozen ways to kill a browser that's been
taken over by popups. If you don't know them, that does not mean that
they don't exist.

> But you two guys don't have to rely on my belief of trojans or/and
> malware existing for LINUX.  There have been numerous postings and
> comments in technical articles on this.

There are a lot of people talking about it. There are a lot of people
talking about gods, too. Doesn't mean either exist.

>   It is not as bad as for
> Windows.  YET!

It may come, but the design of Linux is pretty secure. Even Windows
Vista was a /very/ long way from catching up & Win7 is less secure
than Vista.

> I don't want to take time to debate you on this.  My purpose in
> coming to this form is to seek help from the many who are willing
> to provide it.

You say that, but then you refuse to accept the answers and
information that people give you.

There are 2 choices facing you here.

[1] You accept what people tell you, grasp that you were wrong, you
didn't get infected with malware, that there are no significant
differences in security between different Linux distros, and you start
to learn about the realities of Linux.

[2] You keep insisting that you're right, annoy everyone here and soon
people stop helping you or giving you any info. Or indeed any answers
at all. Note that several people have already badged you as a troll.

> My decision to go to Debian or some other version was a reaction
> to the bugginess.

Once again you prove my point. There is no "bugginess". It's all in your head.

Now either stop arguing and start listening and learning, or STFU and
FOAD, as the kiddies would put it. Simple choice. 2 options. Up to
you.

But you can't have both

-- 
Liam Proven • Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/liamproven
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk • GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lproven at gmail.com
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 • Cell: +44 7939-087884 • Fax: + 44 870-9151419
AOL/AIM/iChat/Yahoo/Skype: liamproven • LiveJournal/Twitter: lproven
MSN: lproven at hotmail.com • ICQ: 73187508