Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.co
!nntp.giganews.com!newscon02.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.net!news.g
orb.com!newsgate.cistron.nl!xs4all!transit3.news.xs4all.nl!post2
news.xs4all.nl!newszilla.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail
From: maxx 
Subject: Re: Linux/virus
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 10:15:06 +0100
User-Agent: Pan/0.14.2.91 (As She Crawled Across the Table (Debian GNU/Linux))
Message-Id: 
Newsgroups: alt.os.linux.ubuntu
References:  
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 31
NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.95.243.3
X-Trace: 1173345307 dreader31.news.xs4all.nl 21679 82.95.243.3:52616
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.os.linux.ubuntu:11741

On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 02:57:03 -0500, Cory Albrecht wrote:

> Pete wrote:
>> Doesn't Linux need an anti-virus and anti-spyware. Or is it by some
>> miracle immune?
> 
> No, it's just that Linux (and *BSD) make up such a small fraction of
> desktop & basic user  machines that's it's not worth the time of virus
> writers (spam kings, nutty teenage boys trying to get revenge on the
> work for not giving them a girlfriend, etc...) to write uni*x-based
> viri. So the big part of why is basically economics, superior security
> notwithstanding. Same reason as why there aren't as many Mac viri as
> well. Were Linux 50% of the market then you can bet there's be a heck of
> a lot more viri.

Read this article:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/10/06/linux_vs_windows_viruses/

This will clarify the misconception 'that Linux (and *BSD) make up such a
small fraction of desktop & basic user  machines that's it's not worth the
time of virus writers (spam kings, nutty teenage boys trying to get
revenge on the work for not giving them a girlfriend, etc...) to write
uni*x-based viri.'

Basically it boils down to 'monoculture'...

-- 
gr,
maxx
:wq!
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
 * Origin: Omicron Theta BBS (1:261/20)