Re: Woohooo! Dell + Linux
Jim Hyslop wrote:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
>> There's [...] no need for Symantec anti-virus
>> products.
>
> I'm curious why you say that. I'm fairly new to Linux, but I understand
> it is more robust and secure than MS Windows. Still, it's not totally
> secure - nothing made by humans could be. So, do you mean that there's
> no need for Symantec because of the freely available alternatives, or
> because Linux just doesn't need anti-virus protection, or something else
> altogether?
Linux is not 100% secure. But it has a different attitude to security
and to viruses.
If a virus hits a windows box, it is a personal mishap, but one can buy
a special software to detect and delete the virus.
If a virus hits a linux box (it rarely happens), it is considered a
security hole. The developers analyse the path the virus got in, fix it
and neither that nor any virus of similar kind will be able to spread
again.
This is a simplification, of course, but I hope you get the point.
Johannes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_computer_viruses
Reply to: