Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (
More info?)
Matt wrote:
> David Maynard wrote:
>
>> Matt wrote:
>>
>>> David Maynard wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The simple fact that there are VIRTUALLY no viruses for Linux
>>>>
>>>> The fact of your simple fact is it isn't true. There are less than
>>>> 100 viruses for Linux (even fewer that are 'popular') but they do
>>>> exist and are growing in number.
>>>
>>> Of course they are growing in number: they are created but never
>>> destroyed. Please indicate any Linux viruses that have caused
>>> practical problems for anybody running Linux.
>>
>>
>> I'm not going to play move the goal posts with you. You tried to
>> suggest there aren't any and there are.
>
>
> JD wrote:
> The simple fact that there are VIRTUALLY no viruses for Linux
Would have helped if you hadn't snipped out the attribution to begin with.
>>
>> FYI: http://archives.cnn.com/2001/TECH/internet/03/23/linux.worm.idg/
>>
>>>> The 'no virus' argument has always been a 'damned if you do' kind of
>>>> thing with Linux because part of what's 'protected' it is the rather
>>>> small market share. I.E. if one wants to inflict damage on a
>>>> multitude of systems then you pick a platform that's popular enough
>>>> to propagate it. And as Linux becomes more popular it'll attract
>>>> more attackers and lose that 'feature' Linux aficionados are touting
>>>> as a reason to make it more popular. The curse of success.
>>>
>>>
>>> Sounds like the same tired old MS-propagated FUD and BS.
>>
>> No, just an understanding of human nature. If one wants to rob a bank
>> they don't go for a kid's piggy bank and if one wants to create
>> general mayhem with a virus they don't generally target 5% of the
>> market when there's 95% sitting there. Not to mention that the devil
>> 'Bill Gates' is a target.
>
>
> Of course those things are true, but their significance depends on
> actual inherent weaknesses in Linux. So that old argument ends up
> begging the question.
No, it isn't begging the question because Linux vulnerabilities exist as
they do in every complex system. That was the point of the original
experiment in 1983 on UNIX and stands today for the simple fact these
things are made by imperfect human beings.
Why do you think there are always scads of 'security updates' for Linux
regardless of which version you're on?
> Really it's more of an argument against Windows than against the
> Unix-derived OSes: monoculture is known to compound Windows's
> vulnerabilities, but the argument is almost completely speculative when
> applied to Linux, Unix, and Mac.
You are just dreaming.
> I mean that monoculture doesn't matter if there are no actual
> vulnerabilities.
The biggest vulnerability is your head in the sand blind faith in something
that's been proven false.
> Besides that, a hypothetical internet that is only half Windows would
> have its non-Windows side divided among Red Hat, Suse, Mandrake, BSD,
> Mac, and other Unixes and Linuxes. So the monoculturalism would still
> be almost all on the Windows side.
That is just speculation and without any basis. For example, the ability to
infect cross platform, both Linux and Windows with the same virus, has
already been demonstrated.
>> Plus, server and 'guru' users tend to be more secure in their
>> practices while home users, currently few using Linux but growing,
>> merrily ignore admonishments to not run open on Administrator and root
>> accounts.
>
>
> It seems much less burdensome under Linux than under Windows to use an
> unpriveleged account.
Nonsense.
> After all, the concepts of 'user' and file
> ownership are retrofitted to Windows and My Computer.
You apparently don't know nearly as much about 'Windows' as you think. The
'NT' platforms were designed from the ground up with user and file security
and with more security features/flexibilty than either UNIX or Linux..
>> In fact, the first documented experimental virus was written in 1983,
>> on a DEC VAX 11/750 running Unix to demonstrate the vulnerability of
>> computer systems, long before 'Windows' was around to be the fall guy
>
>
> Interesting expression. For whom or what is Windows taking "the fall"?
> Maybe you're saying that Windows was somehow exploited for gain by
> some evil genius? Really it sounds so sinister.
The 'fall guy' meaning was clear from the context and you'd get it if you
put as much effort into understanding it as you do arguing.
Windows, by virtue of being the predominate O.S. over most of the market,
became the predominate target of attack since, as I've explained over and
over, if one wants to create mayhem they go for what will cause the most
mayhem. That 'paints a bulls eye' on Windows and add to that the vehemence
some have for 'Bill Gates' and 'Windows' and you have a fall guy. A nice
'excuse' to do nasty things to the rotten bas(*%^. Except they're doing it
to users.
And I hadn't even mentioned yet the other half of the equation that, with
Windows being dramatically more predominate, you have more programmers
familiar with it and more nuts familiar with it.
Really, this is like trying to explain to someone that flies like sugar and
they keep trying to argue the absurd "no they don't."
>
>> with a big red bulls eye painted on it.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram