you use Linux then you will see what I said about being not worth the
effort. If I was a good citizen then I would care about spreading viruses
to Windows users. While I can' t be infected I can still be a carrier. If
you are conscientious, then this is a serious consideration. I am a bit
jaded about Windows. I figure that people get what they deserve. That may
sound harsh, but we need to burn our fingers a few times before we learn to
avoid fire.
I appreciate your thoughts. It makes me remember how I once felt. It is not
wrong to feel like protecting others. I just feel the futility of it when I
know how big the problem is and how little MS cares about users or
security. Their answer is UEFI (not their invention, just their
excuse)which is like wrapping Swiss cheese in a zip lock. You can keep
things out but it is still Swiss cheese inside. Once you open the bag you
will risk mold and contamination. If they really cared then they would fill
the ziplock with something more substantial.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2011/sep/28/windows-8-secure-boot-worry
Roy
Using Kubuntu 11.10, 64-bit
Location: Canada
On 29 October 2011 20:06, G.LinuxDucks <g.linuxducks@gmail.com> wrote:
> **
>
>
> 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----------------------------/
>
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please email LINUX_Newbies-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com & you will be removed.Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LINUX_Newbies/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LINUX_Newbies/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
LINUX_Newbies-digest@yahoogroups.com
LINUX_Newbies-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
LINUX_Newbies-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
No comments:
Post a Comment