From: Leythos on 26 Mar 2010 06:35
In article <584b57ea-f37d-46d3-80bc-
05038d85493c(a)q15g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, raylopez88(a)gmail.com says...
> On Mar 25, 8:43 pm, Leythos <spam999f...(a)rrohio.com> wrote:
> > In article <8e0f56dc-79cb-4de0-a222-
> > fde642701...(a)g28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, raylope...(a)gmail.com says....
> > > So the issue is this: please vote on what system would (in your mind,
> > > since data is really hard to come by) be safer in terms of malware
> > > breaches
> > Having a LOT of real-world experience in this, from an OS platfor, as
> > currently exists, in the hands of a HOME user that is not technical,
> > Most Linux installations are more security than most Windows
> > installations.
> I agree with you 100%. You sound credible and, aside from your barbs
> about me being a troll (which I am, but that doesn't mean I don't pose
> good questions, and this is one of them), like you don't have an ax to
> But remember, the question is (to compare apples with apples): a
> regular Linux user on Linux "naked" vs. a power user in Windows with
> Windows fully protected. Why? Because for one thing, let's face it,
> Linux users are more knowledgeable about PCs than ordinary Windows
> users. They love PCs and are essentially PC hobbyists. So you have
> to compare apples to apples.
There you go changing the specifications to your question again.
Your initial query did not specify the level of the user on either
Quoted from your initial question post:
> So the issue is this: please vote on what system would (in your mind,
> since data is really hard to come by) be safer in terms of malware
> breaches--a MSFT Windows system that has all the latest patches
> (updates/ sig files, firewall, etc), meaning it has a third party
> antivirus program running, and a software firewall, or, NATIVE (naked)
> Linux, meaning a Linux machine connected to the net (OK to have a
> hardware firewall via the router or NAT box), but without any AV
> program running on the Linux machine?
So, my answer is completely accurate and not apples-oranges as you have
suggested - that's why people see you as a Troll, you keep changing the
specifics each time you get an answer.
If you would stop chaning the details AFTER you get an answer you might
gain some credibility.
You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little
voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that.
spam999free(a)rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
From: Wolf K on 26 Mar 2010 09:33
> On 3/26/2010 12:35 AM, ToolPackinMama wrote:
>> I take back what I said earlier: Linux is for idiots now. I should know,
>> I am one.
> Oh, I am back in my Windows partition now, and everything is fine.
> Better than fine: Ubuntu didn't even overwrite the files I had on my
> second partition: it created a folder for itself there, and left my
> other files intact. It also very modestly left Windows as my default
> boot partition. I didn't tell it to do that, it did it automatically.
> I'm really, REALLY impressed!
> So... I take it that I don't need to install antivirus on my NAKED
> Linux? Is that true? If it's not true, tell me ~now~.
No you don't AFAIK, but you can if it makes you feel better.
I like Ubuntu very much, too, installed it in January.
So why don't I use it more? Because so far I have not found a simple
image viewer like IrfanView, XnView or PMView (last one is orphanware,
bah!), all of which do those basic image-proc jobs that suffice 95% of
the time. Gimp is fine as a Photoshop clone, but it does far more than I
want or need. And like Photoshop it has a much too complicated
interface. FWIW, I _hate_ floating menu objects.
My main self-imposed task right now is scanning slides. TWAIN does not
do as good a job as the software bundled with the scanner, of which
there's no Linux version unfortunately. Switching between OSs is a
hassle. So I use XP most of the time.
From: ToolPackinMama on 26 Mar 2010 13:29
On 3/26/2010 11:56 AM, Charlie Wilkes wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 21:34:55 -0400, FromTheRafters wrote:
>> ...does Linux really *want* that marketshare? I'm tellin' ya - the Linux
>> userbase is getting de-clued as we speak due to infiltration by users
>> that would otherwise use Windows7
> I hope you are right about that infiltration. I would like to see the Linux
> marketshare grow because it will mean more support.
Well, I thought that was the idea. Microsoft being evil, and Linux
being more secure than Windows and all.
How hard-hearted does a guy have to be to tell people people who want to
join Linux users that they are not welcome?
From: ToolPackinMama on 26 Mar 2010 13:47
On 3/26/2010 9:33 AM, Wolf K wrote:
> I like Ubuntu very much, too, installed it in January.
> So why don't I use it more? Because so far I have not found a simple
> image viewer like IrfanView, XnView or PMView (last one is orphanware,
> bah!), all of which do those basic image-proc jobs that suffice 95% of
> the time. Gimp is fine as a Photoshop clone, but it does far more than I
> want or need. And like Photoshop it has a much too complicated
> interface. FWIW, I _hate_ floating menu objects.
> My main self-imposed task right now is scanning slides. TWAIN does not
> do as good a job as the software bundled with the scanner, of which
> there's no Linux version unfortunately. Switching between OSs is a
> hassle. So I use XP most of the time.
Well, I play a couple of games, and getting my games to run in Linux
would be a nightmare for me.
Gaming is 90% of what I do with my computer.
For the other ten percent, which you are experiencing right now, I have
a little program called "Shortkeys" that is an invaluable
text-replacement utility. There is no Linux equivalent that I can
readily obtain. There is something called "Snippits" that looks
promising, but for some unknown reason I can't use the updater to find
and install it.
From: Dustin Cook on 26 Mar 2010 18:43
Dustin Cook <bughunter.dustin(a)gmail.com> wrote in
> "FromTheRafters" <erratic(a)nomail.afraid.org> wrote in news:hoh4rs$hke$1
>> The automatic starting is a worm function *not* a virus function. If a
>> virus is able to instantiate its progeny, it is a worm. Viruses have
>> need for exploits that give them the ability to "worm", they exist by
>> transmitting from program to program, and are not always *direct*
> All true. A virus doesn't have the same limitations as a worm or a
> trojan. It exists as code, and requires a host. It'll do the hard work,
> you just sit back and enjoy whatever it's author has planned for you.
>>> And even *if* a virus for linux could somehow enter the system *and*
>>> executing (quite some obstacles to overcome) what is it going to
>> Programs, in some form.
> May even elect to alter configuration files if the virus senses it's a
> linux host vs windows. Whatever rights the user executing the virus
> the virus has at the very least those same rights. Not including
> vulnerabilities which may or may not be present.
>>> So come on, pray tell, what files are going to be infected with your
>>> so-clever linux virus?
>> Whatever is available, but that isn't the problem. The problem is in
>> order to infect files on your system, it will have to be executing. If
>> it is executing, whether it infects files on your system is the
>> of your problems. Maybe it is coded to do damage if you frustrate it.
>> Why was it executing? Because you didn't know it was infected.
>>>> so properly written OSes can still support their existance.
>>> Naturally all OS can support them. After all, they are just files
>> Viruses are *not* files, that is why they need a host program.
> They might live in files, but.. your absolutely right; they themselves
> aren't files. They're code which was written on purpose to reproduce
> itself (at the least) into other programs which you have stored or are
> present in memory.. It's upto the virus and it's author.
This example has nothing really to do with windows vs linux wars (I just
don't see any end to that in site. They both have benefits and drawbacks
and its upto the user to get over them.. hehe) but it's another way for a
virus to do some replicating...
A few viruses would seek out source code, say.. vb files, asm files, even
..c files; modify the source code with their own and re-save it. Allowing
the would be user to later incorporate the viralness into his compiled
software; not being the wiser. From a programming alone standpoint, you
have to admit; it's a bit clever. :)
"Hrrngh! Someday I'm going to hurl this...er...roll this...hrrngh.. nudge
this boulder right down a cliff." - Goblin Warrior