Well thanks Roy. I was hoping this did not get taken wrong to be
anything other than how it turned out as some civil discussion. I
appreciate you taking the time and sharing your extensive experience - a
veteran now 10 year user of Linux. Anyone can plainly see you had/have
no reason to lie about anything and your long experience is the great
value here. You have made many good points. I think your views are most
common over all with most Linux users. The only thing different with my
view basically I think is being a Windows user an making the decision to
err on the side of caution. They call us the windows paranoa spilling
over to Linux as a newer user which is not an exaggeration.
Very honestly for the heck of it I wish you would try ESET for Linux. It
is full free for a 30 day trial to decide to buy or not. With your
experience I think you would be much abler to discern what is going on.
Honest and honest no lie - it is like it is not even there once
installed. (I have tried AVG which left Linux unusable and had to remove
it, too bogged down. Stunk on Ubuntu 10.04)
But the only reason I suggest this is that ESET for Linux has Real Time
Protection (heuristics) and displays stuff like "Blocked Attempts" in
real time while browsing. It may or may not strengthen or change your
position. I was shocked at seeing real time browsing threats blocked on
my Linux. I simply could not believe it. I am a daily user myself and
spend no less than an hour daily. All kinds of activities which is why
also I mention this.
The other thing about Linux antivirus you will find in ESET what you
were talking about. ESET is a more quality product. It scans in real
time everything you open and close. Everything including email. These
are user settings. You can trim it back or nudge it forward into levels
of intensity for monitoring in real time all things as well as on demand
scans. In other words, because of its quality, is why it wan the VB100
Award.
I am not trying to change your mind at all ---- just actually my
position is to finally know Linux like the back of my hand as I do
Windows and security-wise. I can manually find any malware in a Windows
machine. I can not yet do that with Linux. To this area only is why I am
suggesting you try ESET for Linux and I think you will be very surprised
as to what you think is secure. This has been my experience with Linux
so far. I have never seen anyone from Linux anywhere call the
VirusBulletin Labs liars who have tested and "certified" ESET as 100
percent protection against actual real time threats. I mean obviously
they could even possibly be up for lible suits etc, but in the least VB
is one of the most honest independent testing labs in the world for
years on end. If they lied they would be an internet laughing stock in
other words. No one has ever talked that way about them. I trust their
findings 99.9999 percent acurate.
If I wanted to make my point with your view which I do not, I would
mention that about VirusBulletin ....
http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/index
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus_Bulletin
....my point would be this is what is called "imperical data"
indisputable and fact. Anyone saying otherwise would be assumed under a
mental condition or ignorant period. In other words in every court of
law in the world their findings about ESET and Linux malware would be
fact and expert opinion. Any Linux user without this background simply
can not state their "opinion" as anything other than that - thoughts or
impressions etc. When corrected with these cold facts - it is supposed
to educate them to a more truer view of truth. It would be assumed they
then would speak the same with a modified or changed or enhanced opinion.
The point I am trying to make is you had continually said there are no
facts available for Linux malware. Well there most certainly is -
indisputable facts that if you did not believe would have to prove in a
court of law thay they were lies or incorrect in some manner. am
guessing you are not an expert in Linux and malware so that until you
were there would be no way your opinion could be accepted as otherwise
than simply spreading ignorance and a false sense of comp[uting security
endangering other susceptible users. But like I said I am not trying to
make this point but would be my smoking gun for anyone denying the
malware threat today to Linux.
In short this would mean who do you think you are kidding - yourself or
others ? You are saying Virus Bulletin Labs are full of poop ? That
there is no danger to the average user and they should not then install
defense ? Particularly Real Time Protection (heuristics) defense ? Do
you even know what Real Time Protection processes are ? blah blah blah....
Again, thank you very much for sharing your experiences and are
beneficial to myself and to others I am sure that may be reading along.
gerald philly pa usa
http://linuxducks.webs.com/
On 10/29/2011 8:36 AM, Roy wrote:
> I did say that people will say otherwise. Meaning that it is my opinion. I
> did not state it as fact. I disagree with your position. Quoting Bit
> Defender and other sites like it who have a vested interest or magazines
> that like sensationalism is not proof of anything. Microsoft will tell you
> that Windows is secure.anybody can say what they want, but it does not make
> it true.
>
> I base my OPINION on using Linux for over 10 years almost exclusively. I
> have had a broadband (always on) connection for all of that time. I use the
> internet extensively. I download through bittorrent and usenet. I have three
> browsers open at once most of the time. I get email from Windows users. And
> I have never had a single problem. That is not proof of anything, but it is
> my experience and the experience of almost every Linux user. In fact, I have
> never met anyone having had a malware or virus issue. I have hundreds of
> followers on on just about every social media site. I have hundreds of RSS
> feeds that I read daily. I listen to just about every Linux podcast there is
> and there are dozens. It is not like I am deaf to what is happening.
>
> There are only a handful of Linux viruses and none in the wild. None has
> been reported for years and none has spread from one user to another.
> Malware is a potential threat, but Linux is sandboxed with userspace and
> root being separate. Any malware would have trouble infecting root unless
> you provide access. There is no case of this happening that I am aware of. I
> am not saying that it can't happen, but it is unlikely. Linux is not perfect
> and users are the weak link, but because of the way it is structured and it
> is hard to infect and even harder to spread, so people who do this sort of
> thing are unlikely to go to the trouble. They pick the low hanging fruit,
> which is not Linux.
>
> I have tried AV software and it is more trouble than it is worth, especially
> considering two things, the lack of threat and the fact that it must be used
> manually to scan incoming files. Anybody suggesting an imminent threat is
> either spreading FUD or has a vested interest, IMO.<--- note
>
> Users can decide for themselves. This is not gospel, just an opinion and I
> worded it that way. I caution users, especially Windows users who are used
> to serious threats, that Linux is different. The level of threat is not the
> same and the lack of resources to combat threats is lacking because of it.
> There are Linux applications for everything. The lack of support for AV and
> malware is not indicative of carelessness nor a shortcoming. It is
> indicative of the lack of need.
>
> Roy
> Using Kubuntu 11.10, 64-bit
> Location: Canada
>
>
> On 28 October 2011 20:42, g.linuxducks<g.linuxducks@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
-------------------------CUT----------------------------CUT----------------------------/
No comments:
Post a Comment